Ted Haggard | New Life Church

November 2, 2006 3:43 PM

Ted Haggard, one of the most prominent evangelical pastors in the nation, resigned today as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations that he carried on a three-year sexual relationship with a male prostitute. He also steps down as pastor of of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."
posted by ericb (1823 comments total)

Earlier thread which was deleted - here.
posted by ericb at 3:44 PM on November 2, 2006

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
posted by interrobang at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, I think this shows that the prior deletion was misplaced. How about resurrecting that dead thread?
posted by caddis at 3:47 PM on November 2, 2006

I don't see anything wrong with priests having sex with prostitutes. Rather than firing this guy, perhaps they should reconsider their flawed doctrine.

Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Christ. What an asshole!
posted by hal9k at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

Original claim by gay prostitute allegedly backed up by evidence:

"Today, Jones showed the Denver Post an envelope addressed to him from 'Art,' a name Jones says Haggard used - sent from an address in Colorado Springs. Jones said the envelope came to him with two $100 bills inside.

Jones also played a recording of a voicemail left for Jones from 'Art.' Jones refused to reveal what the topic of the voicemail was about because there could be legal problems and he wants to consult with an attorney....Jones said he would take a lie detector test to validate his claims."

posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2006

Obviously, he stepped down so he can spend more time openly pursuing man ass.
posted by MegoSteve at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2006 [7 favorites]

Quick, somebody find a picture of him with Santorum, please.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:50 PM on November 2, 2006

So he is innocent, right?
posted by ernie at 3:52 PM on November 2, 2006

Huh. I was sure this was going to be nothing. First Foley, then this...
posted by smackfu at 3:52 PM on November 2, 2006

So at what point do evangelicals agree that they are more morally corrupt than teh gays and teh vile leftist liebrals.
posted by sourbrew at 3:53 PM on November 2, 2006

Ha ha... hooo. Hoo.

*wipes tear*

This is the weaselly little fuck who George Bush consults. This is the arrogant little asshole with his stadium-seating megachurch in Colorado Springs, the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant. Sex with a male prostitute? Stepping down is not an admission of guilt? This is fucking great.

I've been waiting for a PTL-style meltdown for a long time, and now that these fuckers are ensconced in our government, with all the money and power that comes along with being aligned with the Plutocrat Party, some of that power-abuse is coming back to bite them in the ass. It's about time.
posted by interrobang at 3:54 PM on November 2, 2006

Obviously, he stepped down so he can spend more time openly pursuing man ass.

*snort* Good one!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 3:55 PM on November 2, 2006

So.... this one turned out pretty much exactly like the Foley thing. Way to go, MeFi skeptics. You're 0 and 2!
posted by rxrfrx at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2006

Quick, somebody find a picture of him with Santorum, please.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 PM GMT on November 2

Spare me the gory details, please!
posted by dash_slot- at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2006

PTL-style meltdown

PTL?
posted by SBMike at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2006

Yup, props to whoever got this into the blue earlier. Shame it got deleted.

Welcome to hell, Ted. This one's real.
posted by imperium at 3:57 PM on November 2, 2006

...Today, Jones showed the Denver Post an envelope addressed to him from "Art," a name Jones says Haggard used - sent from an address in Colorado Springs. Jones said the envelope came to him with two $100 bills inside...

$200 hush money?!? I'm assuming the trick dough was presented in person, but the double-Benjis in question were mailed, implying a bribe, right?

If you are trying to shut someone up, at least make a real effort!
posted by ernie at 3:58 PM on November 2, 2006

P.S. grind grind grind grind grind
posted by rxrfrx at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006

PTL
posted by mrnutty at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006

The GOP hates the gays, fears the gays, yet many of these hated and feared gays are the GOP. hee hee. Perhaps it is time for them to find somebody else to hate?
posted by caddis at 3:59 PM on November 2, 2006

PTL. Watch for the nice Jerry Falwell quote in there.
posted by imperium at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2006

"he thinks through a gay newspaper advertisement or an online ad he posted on rentboy.com."

heh. There's something rather amusing about that domain name.
posted by drstein at 4:00 PM on November 2, 2006

pleasepleaseplease be true
posted by Falconetti at 4:01 PM on November 2, 2006

Let's get a pool going; how long before he goes into "rehab"?
posted by you just lost the game at 4:02 PM on November 2, 2006

From the Harper's article in the prev. thread:

According to Ted, it was this army of Christian capitalists that took to the streets. “They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property,” he said. “That's what evangelical stands for.”

Supply side Christ rides again, I guess.
posted by boo_radley at 4:03 PM on November 2, 2006

Let's get a pool going; how long before he goes into "rehab"?

Alcohol is a hell of a drug!
posted by ernie at 4:03 PM on November 2, 2006

If you go to Haggard's site there's a section titled "What He Believes". But there isn't one called "What He Thinks". Wonder why?
posted by you just lost the game at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2006

What the hell does that "grind grind grind grind grind" mean? It's bad enough we have cryptic FPPs, but do we really need cryptic reasons for deletion?

(I realize this should go to MetaTalk, and I would, except that I used up my once-per-four-days)
posted by Kickstart70 at 4:05 PM on November 2, 2006

The timing on this really is excellent. I wonder if that is an accident?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:06 PM on November 2, 2006

WooHoooooooooooooooo!

posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:07 PM on November 2, 2006

In Ted's defense that rent boy was way hot. Plus he really was quite a deal. Around-the-world PLUS a reach-around for less than $50 bucks! Including breakfast! Who could pass that up?

And Ted's wife? "Gayle" Well, let's just say the former Easter German supposed "all-female" shot-putter team may be short a member.
posted by tkchrist at 4:08 PM on November 2, 2006

he seemed to be grindgrindgrindgrinding a hell of a lot of man ass, that's for sure
posted by matteo at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2006

The more they rant, the more they're hiding.

Ted Haggard to his flock: Don't be Weird (after the Harper's piece, TV crews were coming)
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

caddis writes: Well, I think this shows that the prior deletion was misplaced. How about resurrecting that dead thread?

Interesting question, which got me to wondering: has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter? Any tearful apologies and confession of sins from the moderators?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:13 PM on November 2, 2006

Seems strange he'd choose to be gay like that.
posted by ODiV at 4:13 PM on November 2, 2006 [24 favorites]

And maybe this will help the Air Force thing in Colorado Springs, where that church has made it a hostile place to non-Christians.
posted by amberglow at 4:14 PM on November 2, 2006

As far as I can tell, this guy was about equal to James Dobson in influence, but not in national exposure.

And he likes to have sex with other men.

As a libertarian-leaning Dem, I have no problem with that. Yet, if you make a living advocating that people who have gay sex shouldn't have the same rights as straight people, you deserve the heaping helpings of mockery, scorn, penury, and cries of "hypocrite" that you're going to get. Forever and ever amen.
posted by bardic at 4:16 PM on November 2, 2006

wtf - why would a post on this subject be deleted? this guy spoke with the president "everyday" ? influencing policy decisions. jeezus.
posted by specialk420 at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2006

Nussbaum, paraphrased: The bylaws state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave. The outside board makes the final decision.

A lot of churches actually have bylaws like that -- at least, the ones large enough to merit media attention, etc. So he'd pretty much be required to do this no matter how innocent.

That said, his denials are rather... clintonesque. "I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver?" What is this, a Mensa brain teaser? You just say, "No."
posted by verb at 4:17 PM on November 2, 2006

Anyone else remember this thread Turns out Haggard was the guy who ran the church profiled. Pretty interesting coincidence.

has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

I know of at least one instance, although I don't remember the specifics.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM on November 2, 2006

has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

I know of at least one instance, although I don't remember the specifics.

I think it was that thread about Lazarus.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 4:19 PM on November 2, 2006 [6 favorites]

verb writes "'I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver?'"

Hehe... it does sound an awful lot like a technical cop-out. Perhaps they were in a suburb of Denver at the time...
posted by clevershark at 4:20 PM on November 2, 2006

So I've been trying to find a picture of the aforementioned rentboy. Anybody?
posted by Pontius Pilate at 4:22 PM on November 2, 2006

Why do all these Christian Evangelicals keep sucking my cock?
posted by bardic at 4:22 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites]

I saw a brief interview with him on the news. Looks pretty rough trade to me, with a definite Gannon vibe.

Seriously.
posted by bardic at 4:24 PM on November 2, 2006

Oh, man. I thought you were talking about Merle Haggard there for a minute.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:24 PM on November 2, 2006

This is alledgedly the home page of said male escort's massage business. The pictures there (95% SFW, no nudity) are a lot more flattering to this Mike Jones guy than the pic in the article tied to the deleted thread.
posted by clevershark at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006

C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men. Doesn't that count as standing up for family values and moral decency among today's right wing?
posted by rusty at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006

Sweet. I still want to see the evidence online (jessamyn deleted the last post, btw).
posted by mathowie at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006

And by Gannon-vibe, I mean that muscular-yet-beefy rather than totally ripped, semi-balding, military thing.

Is there slang for that yet?
posted by bardic at 4:26 PM on November 2, 2006

Oops, forgot the actual link in my last post :-)
posted by clevershark at 4:27 PM on November 2, 2006

If it were the New York Times instead of the Rocky Mountain News, the NYT would have held the story until next Thursday so as not to interfere with the 'sensitive' election situation, the way the Times did with Bush's illegal NSA spying.
posted by jamjam at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Hillary Clinton drives another poor Christian to homosexuality!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2006

Grind, grind, grind, grind, grind, grind
posted by fire&wings at 4:34 PM on November 2, 2006

From his website, "In the news", not completely up to date...
posted by growabrain at 4:34 PM on November 2, 2006

this is a case of the satanic gay agenda in action:

1 - infiltrate key, ahem, positions, in high-level evangelical GOP circles with gay moles pretending to be straight, anti-gay preachers

2 - instruct the moles to let themselves be caught by the press with, ahem, their pants down just a few days before an election, being cheerfully fisted by muscular, clean shaven young men

3 - ???

4 - profit!!!
posted by matteo at 4:36 PM on November 2, 2006

I'll admit that the timing here is awesome IMO. Dem base is fired up enough, and the key now is to hope as many social conservatives and evangelicals as possible are not willing to once again pinch their noses.
posted by bardic at 4:41 PM on November 2, 2006

I just got a Dremel for my birthday. And I found this really cool old pulaski axe in my garage. It's pretty rusty, but there seems to be enough good steel to save it. So you know what I'm going to be doing tomorrow? Literally grinding my axe. True story. I'll think of ya'll.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:43 PM on November 2, 2006

C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men.

I don't get the "at least." What's wrong with what he did?

Or is my irony detector just miscalibrated?
posted by poweredbybeard at 4:44 PM on November 2, 2006

I think the parishioners will blame the guy for tempting him, i bet.
posted by amberglow at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2006

I read it and it still seems hypothetical. One dude claims he had sex with a preacher of a megachurch. There's no tapes, no photos, no proof. It's just hearsay at this point, total gossip with nothing to back it up.

Then why not delete the post?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:50 AM PST on November 2

Oh, man. I thought you were talking about Merle Haggard there for a minute.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:24 PM PST on November 2

That's quite a bit closer to 274 minutes, monju. And I didn't know Merle had picked up that megachurch gig. Thanks for the information!
posted by jamjam at 4:45 PM on November 2, 2006

Hate on the FPP because it's newsfilter, fine. But it ain't axe-grinding. This guy represents millions of Christian Americans. He had the president's ear. He is taking a spectacular fall.

If Michael Moore got caught being pegged by Ann Coulter, it would be mefi's job, nay, it's duty to comment upon it.
posted by bardic at 4:46 PM on November 2, 2006

> The more they rant, the more they're hiding.

You know, the thing I really can't stand about queers is they're all Evangelicals like this guy or Republicans like Foley or both. As Amberglow will be the first to tell you, the more you deny it, the more that proves it true.
posted by jfuller at 4:48 PM on November 2, 2006

He probably did sleep with Gannon/Guckert too: ... Every Monday he participates in the West Wing conference call with evangelical leaders. The group continues to prod the President to campaign aggressively for a federal marriage amendment. "We wanted him to use the force of his office to actively lobby the Congress and Senate, which he did not adequately do," says Haggard....

and from there: ...He staked out gay bars, inviting men to come to his church; ...

"come to his church" is some sexual invitation, obviously ; >
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on November 2, 2006

Well, looks like he couldn't bring himself to sign the Evangelical Climate Initiative, either. Chump.

And by the way, here are some actual paintings displayed in the New Life Church. Really. I'm not kidding.
posted by maryh at 4:54 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites]

You know what I can't wait for? I can't wait for the day Tony Perkins is caught humping a dead, gay possum whilst jerking off a transsexual nun in a rabbit costume. That's going to be some g*d-damned interesting day!
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:55 PM on November 2, 2006

XD
posted by keswick at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2006

The group continues to prod the President...

heh heh...heh heh heh... heh heh...
/beavis
posted by maryh at 4:56 PM on November 2, 2006

maryh - that is amazing! My snark muscles are failing me ...
posted by rks404 at 4:59 PM on November 2, 2006

You said "prod," huh huhuhuhuhuh

/butthead
posted by keswick at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2006

"You'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things. But, please, in the process, don't be arrogant."

--Ted Haggard
posted by luckypozzo at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2006

PrurientScandalFilter: Don "Choker" Sherwood paid his mistress half a million dollars to keep her mouth shut.

...just to show that Republican scandals aren't strictly a man-to-man affair. You know, "fair and balanced" and all that.
posted by clevershark at 5:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Gee, thanks jessamyn.
But for safety's sake, wear eye protection with that grinder, wouldn't want you blind blind, blind, blind, blind.
I suppose we all have our little axes.
posted by nofundy at 5:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

AccuracyFilter: Sorry, make that "more than half of $500,000" to keep quiet.
posted by clevershark at 5:05 PM on November 2, 2006

Christ. What an asshole!

Christ: What an asshole!

posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

I offer a deep tissue and swedish style massage with the pleasure of the man in mind. If you like a strong muscle man to bring pleasure to you then please call me. I am a muscle stud with a friendly personality and a caring heart. When the Broadway shows play in town the cast and crew call upon me for massage.

Rawr. No wonder he couldn't resist. I mean, come on, the cast and crew of Broadway shows call this guy when they're in town! Thanks for the link, clevershark.
posted by jokeefe at 5:07 PM on November 2, 2006

...of course, I refer to my neighbour Wally Christ, who never rakes his leaves nor mows his lawn.
posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:07 PM on November 2, 2006

Hilarious comments.
An even better thread I'd venture.
Thank you ericb.
Can we get that Harper's reference back about the statuary at his "church?"
posted by nofundy at 5:08 PM on November 2, 2006

Gay sex demons. (from May 2005)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:14 PM on November 2, 2006

I'm not an evangelical; emphatically so. I was raised evangelical, and left because the evangelicals are everything I hate about the modern world: slick, commercial, cool, easy, pop-psychologising, et cetera. They have no concept of their own religion, a religion I tend to have a lot of respect for.

But I have a really hard time feeling good about this. I mean, even if it were good to be happy about the downfall of an asshole (and I don't know that it is) this guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole. His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity. I haven't always agreed with the things he's said, but I've never heard him expressing those views in a violent or crude way like so many nut-job preachers have (say, Jerry Falwell.)

Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Add to that the fact that schadenfreude is pretty disgusting when it comes down. I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down; how sad and sick it was to see people delighting in the fracturing of a guy's family because it brought them political gain. This isn't really different.

And it'd be nice if this were some sort of victory in the name of egalitarianism, but it's not. Human hypocrisy doesn't prove anything to anybody; this guy's moral weakness doesn't demonstrate that homosexuality is no less immoral than heterosexuality. Unfortunately, it'll probably make it worse.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006 [8 favorites]

poweredbybeard: "At least" meaning "at least it wasn't teenage boys." By being an apparently normal homosexual man (albeit of the pay-for-play variety, which is rather distasteful for gays and non alike), Ted Haggard has probably done some good for the right wing image. I would think. In the "Ted Haggard proves evangelical right-wing not all pedophiles" kind of way.
posted by rusty at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006

I think that's why jess deleted the last thread. I agree with it, if it was.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM on November 2, 2006

This is why I would never become a gay prostitute. I bet half my customers would be evangelicals.
posted by obvious at 5:22 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant

Heh. And another of his detractors, notorious creationist Kent Hovind was convicted of tax fraud today. Dawkins is a couple of days from the end of the U.S. portion of his book tour (for The God Delusion), and it does seem that the fates are conspiring to give him an interesting bon voyage.
posted by Creosote at 5:26 PM on November 2, 2006

Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Too bad that didn't stop him.
posted by ernie at 5:26 PM on November 2, 2006

His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity.

I would describe the big Evangelical churches' actions vis a vis cheerleading the Iraq War, getting Republicans elected, rallying against marriage rights, "curing" gays, and so forth as a little more than "a culture of mediocrity." More like a culture of repression, and worse.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:27 PM on November 2, 2006

From his website, Ted Haggard believes:

Hell: After living one life on earth, the unbelievers will be judged by God and sent to hell where they will be eternally tormented with the devil and the fallen angels (see Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Heb. 9:27; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:12-15; 21:8).

Or to put it another way, he believes the universe is run by a despot who will send to eternal torment all those who fail to show appropriate fealty to the supreme leader.

I'm pretty happy to see a guy who thinks that way lose the ear of the president, although there are no doubt lots of others waiting to take his place.
posted by bowline at 5:29 PM on November 2, 2006

koeselitz: Clinton wasn't rallying thousands of followers against the Evil Demon of Blowjobs, and trying make sure that no one who engaged in oral sex could marry, or adopt, or in any way be permitted to lead a normal life in america. That's why this is different.

What all of these "moral crusader turns out to be a total hypocrite" stories always demonstrate is that the people who are the most vocally against something are usually drawn to that thing irresistably, and hate themselves for it. How many other ordinary gay men did this guy lure into his church and convince that they should hate themselves too? How much longer do we have to repeat this cycle?

Every one of them that falls is one less blot on humanity, and one more step toward freedom for all of us. Good riddance, and may the rest of them follow.
posted by rusty at 5:30 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites]

rxfrx: "More like a culture of repression, and worse."

I'd wager that you don't know too many evangelicals, and that you only know them from what you see on TV and the Internet. Let me be the first to tell you, you usually have to talk to people before you can understand their culture.
posted by koeselitz at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2006

Koeselitz--that was an interesting and thoughtful post, but I will disagree with one point: ". I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down...This isn't really different."

It is different, and you yourself allude to the way it is: the hypocrisy. Clinton was never looked at as a beacon of virtue--he'd had his "bimbo eruptions" since he was first running for president. Haggard's job is/was to be a beacon of virtue. The schadenfreude you see here in the Blue is delight in the exposure of that hypocrisy.
posted by adamrice at 5:32 PM on November 2, 2006

Haggard preaching against homosexuality from the recent documentary 'Jesus Camp': YouTube video.
posted by ericb at 5:34 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

rusty: "What all of these "moral crusader turns out to be a total hypocrite" stories always demonstrate is that the people who are the most vocally against something are usually drawn to that thing irresistably, and hate themselves for it."

By that logic, every person here, and Richard Dawkins too, is a closet evangelical. Somehow, I doubt it.

What a crappy argument.

Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 5:35 PM on November 2, 2006

I remember how bad it was when the Republicans brought Clinton down; how sad and sick it was to see people delighting in the fracturing of a guy's family because it brought them political gain. This isn't really different.

I respectfully disagree. First off, Clinton's impeachment arguably helped him out. His polls actually went up, and many Republicans looked really bad and were flailing until 9/11 changed the political landscape for everyone.

I think it's a lot different for another reason. Bill Clinton didn't build his career on moralistic finger-pointing about the evils of sex outside of marriage. (Far, far from it.) Say what you will, but hypocrisy isn't Clinton's fatal flaw. Arrogance, hubris, and a willingness to use people for his own political ends? Take you pick from those three.

Human hypocrisy doesn't prove anything to anybody; this guy's moral weakness doesn't demonstrate that homosexuality is no less immoral than heterosexuality.

Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others. Yes, I feel sorry for this guy's family, but let's not get too misty here -- the guy made a nice home for him and his through gay-baiting. When Christian Evangelicals start holding candle-light vigils every time a gay teenager commits suicide because of the hate thrown at them, maybe we can talk parity. Until then, say it loud: People telling you who you should and shouldn't fuck are probably fucking all kinds of people you don't know about. If there is a Christian God, these people (hypocrites and deceivers in general) are going to a far worse place than lil' ol' atheist me.
posted by bardic at 5:36 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites]

Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden.

Then, let me be the first to welcome him to the g*ddamned real world, where the rest of us try to do better by our fellow citizens without jettisoning our critical thinking and reasoning skills. Where we strive to acknowledge our faults, without the promise of becoming eternal f*cking lotto winners.

Where we accept others, even with their shortcomings, because we can recognize our own. The real world. The one he's been pretending to be above and beyond.

Fuck this guy.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 5:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [5 favorites]

rusty and adamrice pretty much beat me to my main points.
posted by bardic at 5:38 PM on November 2, 2006

Give me a break.

I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

It's right before an election, he is on record as being against same sex marriage along with his church, and he is a target.

Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????


So until some real proof comes along (and I ain't holding my breath) I'm certainly giving him the benefit of the doubt. As to him stepping down from his positions, I wouldn't expect him to do any less under the circumstances.
posted by konolia at 5:39 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

koeselitz: Those kind, loving evangelicals who stand outside the Common Ground Fair entrance with the giant placards of what I assume they want me to believe are aborted fetuses? Or the ones who consistently deny gay men and women just like the good Rev. Haggard the same basic rights and freedoms straight people have?

I'm sure they're very nice to chat with, as long as you're just like them. Next time you hang out with some evangelicals who don't know you, tell them you're a gay Planned Parenthood employee. See how that goes.
posted by rusty at 5:41 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

koeselitz: The difference is that this is not just a matter of private family anguish, though I imagine it will include that (of course we have no idea if his wife already knew about this or not, assuming it's true-- she may have, we just don't know). He is a hugely prominent figure who has used his moral authority over those entrusted to his spiritual care in the service of punishing his fellow gay citizens by campaigning against the right to marry as well as a laundry list of other offenses. They're already been enumerated here, so I won't repeat them. So I'm not going to celebrate his personal Gethsemane, but I will celebrate the downfall of his public moral authority, which I feel has been used in the service of bigotry and prejudice.
posted by jokeefe at 5:42 PM on November 2, 2006

Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.

I tend to agree. But while my giggles are inappropriate, the confirmation of my belief that the biggest moralists are often the biggest hypocrites isn't. And that power corrupts -- during the 80's and 90's, Christians were eager to jump into bed with Republican politicans. (Huh huh /beavis.) Now they're reaping what they've sown.

I hope his wife and kids can manage to live normal lives after this. My hunch is that they'd be best off moving far away from the same hypocrite-ennablers with which they've insulated themselves, and to try and live their own lives in the best way possible, as opposed to screeching at other people about how they should live their lives.
posted by bardic at 5:43 PM on November 2, 2006

My fear is that he didn't practice safe sex with either his wife or his male sex partner.
posted by TorontoSandy at 5:43 PM on November 2, 2006

konolia, I accuse you of consorting with prostitutes. You should quit your job now.

(That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.)
posted by bardic at 5:44 PM on November 2, 2006

By that logic, every person here, and Richard Dawkins too, is a closet evangelical. Somehow, I doubt it.

Touche. That's actually a good point. I could argue against it, but I'm not actually fully convinced myself, so I will leave it alone to be thought upon.

Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.

I agree with that too. I feel bad about it. And most of my joy is not in Haggard's pain, but in the continued exposure of the hypocrisy and corruption underlying the megachurch evangelical movement and the "family values" right. But some of my joy is in the personal pain of someone I can't find anything but contempt for in my heart. And to that extent, I too am a bad person.
posted by rusty at 5:45 PM on November 2, 2006

bardic: "Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others."

I'd like to know which one. Most of the ancient greek playwrights were big fans of rationality. Lots of them thought, as I do, that homosexuality is morally equivalent, and probably superior, to heterosexuality because of its nature, not because some guy cheats on his wife. In fact, saying that homosexuality is morally acceptable because some guy cheats on his wife doesn't even make sense. And the greek playwrights, as far as I know, liked things that make sense.

2sheets: 'I grew up in the south and know them all too well. Evangelicals are pigs. It's good to see one on the spit. Can you smell what's cooking, you hypocritical neo-hillbilly trash?"

Wow. This is going well. What a delightful thing to say.
posted by koeselitz at 5:45 PM on November 2, 2006

"This is the arrogant little asshole with his stadium-seating megachurch in Colorado Springs, the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant."

Man, when I saw that show, the first thing I wanted to do was hit this guy as hard as I could. The next thought that crossed my mind was "boy, that guy is probably one creepily twisted hypocritical SOB with some appalling skeletons in his closet." And then I felt a little sorry for him. But I still wanted to hit him.

Thankfully, the real world is doing it for me! :)

This is exactly the kind of religious nutcase that Dawkins is 100% correct about. Nobody should ever allow someone like this to attain a position of power over them, nor look up to them as some kind of idol.

Haven't we, collectively, seen enough of these "false prophet" type assholes to know not to listen to one word they say yet?

I can usually recognize one of them after two or three sentences out of their mouth, how come so many people out there join their "flocks" so credulously??

And when you see your President (or other leader, as applicable) listening to such whack jobs, remove him from office as fast as possible.

Stupid arrogant bastard, Haggard. Enjoy the slide downwards. Try to catch yourself before you hit bottom...

"Taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong."

Well, ya got me there koeselitz. Sigh. I'm only human, and sometimes payback being a bitch induces satisfaction in me.

"Just think about it for a moment: this guy has a wife, kids, who have to deal with the fact that he's been cheating on them. That's a hell of a burden."

That is a tragedy. However, it's sort of an everyday tragedy, which will very unfortunately be amplified by the national news coverage. When I say "everyday," I mean that people cheating on their spouses and getting caught doing bad things happens every day, sort of a run-of-the-mill human behavior problem.

I feel very sorry for his family, as they are victims of his foolishness, but I agree with ernie that it's a shame this didn't stop the guy. Clearly he knows the difference between right and wrong, and that this behavior could destroy the lives of everyone around him?

Contrast that with the tragedies caused by discrimination against GLBTs, and Christian Crusaderism married with corporate greed and the world-domination ambitions of a group of megalomaniacs, in which this guy has been an active and vocal supporter and participant. This guy has been "advising" the President of the United States. Undoubtedly he has provided support for our disastrous foreign policy adventures, eh?

He's a part of a sick, twisted system, and as tragic as it is for him personally and for his loved ones - not to mention the people who've latched onto him as their conduit to God, the poor folks - he's just one of many towering egoes that need to be cut down to size for their blatant and evil hypocrisy.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:47 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

And your "gaydar"? Please konolia, go drink a glass of sanity. Unless you've spent the summer on Fire Island recently, you're probably not an expert on the subject of who is and isn't gay.

He was probably paying the prostitute hush money and decided he could get away with stopping. Bad idea.
posted by bardic at 5:48 PM on November 2, 2006

Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????

Clinton continued doing what he did for what, 2 years before anyone knew about it? That's how affairs work -- both parties do it *in secret* and it only comes to light down the line when one party is tired of the secret arrangement.

Hopefully these voicemails and letters get online so we can see the evidence, though seeing him step down looks rather guilty. I remember Foley was gone before I ever saw a slutty IM online.
posted by mathowie at 5:49 PM on November 2, 2006

Yeah, chill, 2sheets. That was uncalled for.
posted by jokeefe at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2006

rusty: "I'm sure they're very nice to chat with, as long as you're just like them. Next time you hang out with some evangelicals who don't know you, tell them you're a gay Planned Parenthood employee. See how that goes."

I haven't done that. I have walked up to them and asked them to stop protesting before. And I've told my evangelical parents that I was having sex with my girlfriend, that I was moving in with her, and that I wouldn't be going to church any time soon. So before you talk to me about their hatred, know that I've experienced most of what it has to offer.
posted by koeselitz at 5:50 PM on November 2, 2006

"Ancient Greek playwrites would disagree with you, among others."

I think bardic is referring to the fact that in Greek Tragedy Hubris is often followed by Nemesis.
posted by ericb at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006

Oh, and by the way:

"...the same one who told Richard Dawkins not to be arrogant."

What an idiot. I'm sure he spent his prayer time telling god to be less all-powerful; I imagine that was about as productive.
posted by koeselitz at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

"This guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole. His biggest crime, if you ask me, is being part of a culture of mediocrity. I haven't always agreed with the things he's said, but I've never heard him expressing those views in a violent or crude way like so many nut-job preachers have (say, Jerry Falwell.)"

Well, let's see, Koeselitz. He preaches on and on about the evils of homosexuality, declares gays are going to hell, and advocates an anti-gay marriage amendment to his *millions* of followers.

Sounds like an asshole to me!
posted by mijuta at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006

I was making a long-winded point that fatal flaws, usually in the form of hubris rather than hypocrisy, are the stuff of some great art and tragedy. This situation doesn't exactly qualify, but there's a common theme in demagogues gone off the rails. So yeah, I'm a giggly voyeur to this trash, but again rusty said it better than I did -- it's not delighting in the pain this causes his family as much as delighting in yet another example of IOKIYAChristian, a common variant on IOKIYAR.

More simply, the party of moral values isn't. Hell, the religion of moral values isn't. The more stuff like this comes to light, the more quickly these worthless memes will go away, hopefully.
posted by bardic at 5:53 PM on November 2, 2006

My gaydar works just fine

Does your gaydar flash a little red light, or is it the kind that makes a whoop-whoop sound?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:55 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites]

has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

yes, this one was deleted because of subject matter but many protests caused matt to change his mind ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 PM on November 2, 2006

If he was framed, stepping down seems like the wrong move. Its so easy to characterize that as an admission of guilt.

I wouldn't be suprised if he was framed, or if he like to suck a bit of dick now and again.

What a crazy bitch this life is, eh?
posted by dobie at 5:58 PM on November 2, 2006

rxfrx: More like a culture of repression, and worse.

Are you kidding me? Go reread your Foucault - these guys absolutely can't stop talking about sex and the radical sex demons who want to sex them up sexually. It's the furthest thing from repression imaginable!

Just as the Meese Report was its era's filthiest pr0n, the discourse of evangelicals is more jam-packed fulla hot steamy man-on-man action than anything from Colt Studios.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2006

Koeslitz, you have your experience with fundamentalists. I'm glad your parents didn't disown you. And "fundamentalists" can cover many degrees, from basically devout to frothing at the mouth. Many of my family fall at different parts of that spectrum. I used to, myself.

But, you know, sometimes comeuppance is deserved. Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays. To be honest, I don't care enough about him to want him to suffer. I just want him to be unable to keep spouting his hatred of gays (and others) in God's name. Because he's not doing God any favors. And if it takes a public scandal to do it, then so be it.

I'm sorry for his family, but it is him, not us, who is dragging them through the mud. He's the one who cheated on his wife, who made himself a visible symbol of homophobia. Take his family's pain up with him, not with us. Otherwise, people who do wrong would always be able to hide behind their families so no one could call them on it.
posted by emjaybee at 6:03 PM on November 2, 2006

Haggard: homosexuality is a “sin” and “devastating for the children of our nation and for the future of Western civilization.”
posted by ericb at 6:05 PM on November 2, 2006

Why does Matthowie hate black people huge cocks?
posted by bardic at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2006

"I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it."

Konolia, maybe your gaydar is total crap? Because if you watch this video, you'll see what an obvious cock sucker he is.

(I say this as a cock sucker myself. A male cock sucker, that is.)
posted by mijuta at 6:14 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays.

My bet is he will join the Born Again Whatever, claiming it was the devil and abuse of some drug he now doesn't get anymore, but that now he talks with Jesus or something.

A stream of bullshit as usual.
posted by elpapacito at 6:15 PM on November 2, 2006

Never been to Fire Island BUT have had lots of experience being around and talking to gay people. Give me a break, most of you have gaydar too.

As to the stepping down part-a lot of large churches have this sort of procedure should accusations like this come up. Kinda like a cop going on desk duty or unpaid leave if he or she shoots someone in the line of duty. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong, it's simply standard procedure. Besides, I know if I were accused of something like this, my mind certainly would not be on work.

I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence. Something like this could happen to anyone. It is frighteningly not uncommon in politics, where false accusations ruin lives and careers simply to protect the power of crooked politicians.
posted by konolia at 6:19 PM on November 2, 2006

I don't try to take joy in someone else's suffering, but there are only a few in this world who probably deserve it more.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:20 PM on November 2, 2006

koselitz, don't be lazy. there's an entire google of information out there if you actually care to learn about the influence of guys like Haggard on the president, and how this mainly worked to effect bigotry, mixing of church and state, and neocon-style fascism. The dude's own personal hypocrisy doesn't even need to enter into this, as much as it should.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:22 PM on November 2, 2006

Well, the evidence so far is that a gay male prostitute claims he had lots of sex with Ted Haggard. Nothing is confirmed yet, but that's evidence.

If that was totally baseless, Haggard should have denied, period, and gone on with his life.

Like I said, if a random stranger accused me of a criminal act, I'd deny it and go to work the next day. Because I haven't committed a criminal act for a while.

But in any event, if this is confirmed, please come back to this thread and remind us that because of his actions, Ted Haggard will burn in hell forever for being gay, a hypocrite, and a deceiver of his fellow Christians. That'd be good fun. Then get back out their with your keen "gaydar" and out some more sinners for us, you loon.
posted by bardic at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2006

My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

Really? Mine spiked and shorted out from overload the second I saw him. It may not work, though. After all it goes off everytime I see a Tom Cruise movie.
posted by tkchrist at 6:27 PM on November 2, 2006

This November surprise proves that while God is neither a Democrat or a Republican, He sure doesn't want the GOP getting any traction from the Kerry kerfluffle.

And with Haggard's possible fall will come more allegations. It's 1987 all over again. And from the falls of Swaggart and Bakker and Roberts came the openings that led Robertson and Dobson and Haggard to the top of American Christianity.

The Christian church in America is about to go through another transformative cycle. The question is whether it's going to emerge looking more like Brian McLaren's Emerging Church or Mark Driscoll's neo-Reformed Movement.

For you atheists and non-Christians, this last bit is all irrelevant to you. Just know this: You're about to get a generation in the spotlight. Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. And then, some other group replaces you. Probably a politicized Church of SubGenius campaigning for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to slack.
posted by dw at 6:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

People I feel sorry for, in ascending order, if this turns out to be false:
* Pastor Ted's wife and children
* Pastor Ted
* millions of gay Americans who have to live with the effects of his homophobic bullshit

People I feel sorry for, in ascending order, if this turns out to be true:
* Pastor Ted
* Pastor Ted's wife and children
* millions of gay Americans who have to live with the effects of his homophobic bullshit
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:28 PM on November 2, 2006

Bardic, I could talk about the sinfulness of assuming the worst about someone just because someone else said so.

That's enough to send someone to hell if they refuse to repent.
posted by konolia at 6:32 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

koeselitz: I gave it some more thought, and I actually think you're right about the "closet evangelical" thing. I can't speak for anyone else here, but here's what I find when I think about that. My original point essentially was that we have particular hatred and loathing for that which we envy and deny ourselves. Ok? So naturally, gay Rev. Haggard works out his issues by crusading against gays.

But I'm a farily outspoken athiest, and while I'm not out crusading anywhere, I feel a deep personal loathing for all kinds of fundamentalists, and religious ones in particular. So am I a closet evangelical? I find that basically I am. I envy the simple, uncomplicated worldview that fundamentalists can afford. There is Good and there is Evil. We are Good. We fight Evil. That's basically all there is to it. And for Christians, becoming Good is easy as falling off a log. "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior." Bada-bing! Done!

My own worldview is a lot more complicated than that. It involves thinking about issues in context, considering more than one side of any given issue, trying to determine what I think might be best for people in general and me in particular, trying to take into account the wisdom of a lot of really terrifyingly smart people who have been doing this since forever, and many of whom disagreed radically with each other. I have to worry about questions like "How can people figure out how to get along with each other and make the most of the infinitely short time that we have?" I have to try to understand what really drives people to do terrible things, individually and as whole societies, and how we can prevent these things from happening in the future.

I mean, no one has charged me with figuring it all out or anything, but I feel like it's everyone's responsibility to think about this stuff. And sometimes there are not any obviously good answers. It can make a thinking moral being feel pretty damn helpless sometimes.

So yes, I am in a way a closet evangelical. It would be so easy, so seductively easy to simply assign everything to one of two categories and go to town against the Evil stuff. It would be so much easier if I could get my entire ethos out of one convenient book. Or, even better, one convenient TV show, hosted by a guy who says he's read the one book. Who needs all the effort involved in being a rational moral actor anyway? Screw it. Let's go bash some fags and call it a day, right?

And the fact that I can feel that temptation, and completely understand and sympathize with it, makes me feel such an intense loathing for the hordes of people who have given in to it, or never even realized they had a choice.

So yes, I stand by my original claim, that what we envy and deny ourselves is what we hate the most. Including what that statement says about me.
posted by rusty at 6:34 PM on November 2, 2006 [22 favorites]

Ah, and you miss the point yet again. Men fucking other men isn't a sin. What's sinful is hypocrisy and deceit, on the scale of millions of people, i.e., his followers.

So if this a false accusation, I'm guilty of thinking that Haggard is gay when he isn't. What wouldn't change is that he's dedicated his life to sewing hatred against a minority group, and he's gotten rich doing it.

If he does like to suck cock, well, he's still a hateful bigot. But a hateful bigoted hypocrite as well.
posted by bardic at 6:35 PM on November 2, 2006

Blame it all on the gay agenda!
posted by ericb at 6:35 PM on November 2, 2006

konolia writes "Bardic, I could talk about the sinfulness of assuming the worst about someone just because someone else said so."

And yet you seem to be assuming that Jones is lying.
posted by clevershark at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence.

Wow! To hear these words from konolia... My irony detector just blew so hard it knocked out my gaydar.

I just got a Dremel for my birthday. And I found this really cool old pulaski axe in my garage. It's pretty rusty, but there seems to be enough good steel to save it. So you know what I'm going to be doing tomorrow? Literally grinding my axe. True story. I'll think of ya'll.

Dude, that's the fastest way to ruin the heat treat on the steel. A regular mill file works just fine.
posted by c13 at 6:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Re: the 'Gaydar' mini-thread - it was obvious, to me at least, while watching the Richard Dawkin's documentary several months ago that Haggard was gay.

And what about that video- fascinating for so many reasons:

An obviously gay man talking about 'processing',

the 'disassociated' character that refers to itself as 'we' rather than I,

the 'John Kerry' thing!,

and the "I've never had sex with a man in Denver" action.

I wonder how much suffering this man has caused to his parishioners by inflicting his message that homosexuality is wrong.
posted by jettloe at 6:39 PM on November 2, 2006

I cannot believe you all believe this without any shred of real evidence.

I was fairly skeptical, until he claimed to have voicemails. If he's lying, that's a pretty bold claim to make. One way or the other, we'll know real soon.

There are various stories in the Old Testament about God letting the Hebrews stray into sin for years and years before finally laying the smackdown on them. I imagine one could write quite a sermon on the parallels to our current situation.
posted by EarBucket at 6:42 PM on November 2, 2006

(That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.)

I'll reiterate: I'm no fan of Haggard's, but yes. The 'morality scandal' issue is something that churches and religious institutions tend to either ignore completely and brush under the carpet, or take very seriously. Most large churches have rules about this kind of thing: if you're accused of something that goes against the church's basic beliefs or moral precepts, and you're in a leadership position, you step down temporarily while things get sorted out and the truth of the matter is resolved. It's happened to folks I know, and it's not -- in and of itself -- news.

Mind you, I find his weirdly precise denials a bit odd, and it's the kind of story that I dont' find difficult to believe at all based on my experience in the church. But stepping down for the duration of an investigation into the matter is SOP for megachurches and minichurches and what not.
posted by verb at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2006

emjaybee: Perhaps this man's falling off his pedestal will lessen the hatred that he has *dedicated his life* to fomenting against gays.

Unfortunately, however it affects Haggard, I think his flock will learn to be more homophobic.

This gives them a tremendously negative example of homosexuality, doubtlessly added to an already biased sample set. They'll see a community leader fed to the flames he helped ignite. They'll see homosexuality conflated with the crime of prostitution, the secrecy and shame of adultery. And, possibly, they'll see all of it framed by the destruction of a marriage and a career.

What homophobic people need to see, fear to see, is a successful, adjusted homosexual relationship. A marriage, if you will. This sort of example will only make them worse.
posted by kid ichorous at 6:47 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia: Something like this could happen to anyone. It is frighteningly not uncommon in politics, where false accusations ruin lives and careers simply to protect the power of crooked politicians.

Too true. I was falsely accused of something bad several years ago. It was awful. Even though the person making the accusation had zero credibility, and anyone who cared to look into the matter knew that he was a flake, there still were people who believed the accusations.

If someone who is mentally unstable decides to accuse you of something bad, there's not much you can do about it other than to allow "the process" to exonerate you in the eyes of those who are willing to base their opinions on evidence. That's why I'm going to wait until there's more information before I start drawing any conclusions.

So far as I can tell, Haggard is doing what the procedures of his church say he's supposed to do when such accusations are made. He's the head of an organization that has encouraged churches to develop these processes for handling accusations, and now you all think that if he's really innocent he would refuse to allow "the process" to work, and if he is following the stated process it must be a sign of guilt?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2006

I wonder how much suffering this man has caused to his parishioners by inflicting his message that homosexuality is wrong.


Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

I am not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals go thru pain out of nonacceptance. I submit that pedophiles do as well. That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful. For that matter, adulterers probably don't appreciate being told that that is sin. Murderers? Well, I think most of them have no problem admitting that murder is a sin, interestingly.

If you don't claim God as your authority figure by all means do as you will. You can do nothing else. But Ted has made a profession of following God, therefore he will believe as I do that certain actions are sin against a holy God. If these accusations do turn out to be true I will be truly flabbergasted.

In contrast I had no problem believing Swaggart messed up.
posted by konolia at 6:53 PM on November 2, 2006

I, by the way, have gaynar -- I can detect homosexuals through sound.
posted by TheWash at 6:53 PM on November 2, 2006 [6 favorites]

So this is the guy that wanted to dictate what morality should be for all of us? And he fucks gay hookers and takes meth while we are compelled by the government to do what he says?

Sorry - I'm laughing myself silly over this and I don't even feel vaguely bad about it. He deserves a lot worse for his arrogance and this whole event, weirdly enough, makes me feel like there is a god up there, dishing out some old testament style poetic justice.
posted by rks404 at 6:56 PM on November 2, 2006

konolia writes "Replace 'homosexuality' with pedophilia and see how that reads."

Why is it that the "religious" have so much problem differentiating homosexuality from pedophilia? Why the obsessive need to associate the two?
posted by clevershark at 6:58 PM on November 2, 2006

Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

How dare you equate the two?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:59 PM on November 2, 2006

Oh no, you did NOT just equqte consensual adult sex with child molesters.
posted by ltracey at 7:00 PM on November 2, 2006

"equqte" = "equate" (see Blazecock Pileon above.)
posted by ltracey at 7:01 PM on November 2, 2006

“They're pro-free markets, they're pro-private property, they're pro-felching man ass” he said. “That's what evangelical stands for.”
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2006

What homophobic people need to see, fear to see, is a successful, adjusted homosexual relationship. A marriage, if you will.

As before (in the deleted thread) --

Gay marriage has actually helped strengthen the institution of marriage in Scandanavia.

"Seventeen years after recognizing same-sex relationships in Scandinavia there are higher marriage rates for heterosexuals, lower divorce rates, lower rates for out-of-wedlock births, lower STD rates, more stable and durable gay relationships, more monogamy among gay couples, and so far no slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages, or 'man-on-dog' unions."

[Wall Street Journal | October 27, 2006]

posted by ericb at 7:03 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

konolia: If you don't claim God as your authority figure by all means do as you will. You can do nothing else.

Not true. God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person. Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right. That's why we spend so much time listening to music and watching tv and surfing the net and so on: we are all afraid of silence because if we don't keep up a steady stream of distractions we might hear the still, small voice at the center of our hearts, and be forced to confront the gap between who we are and who we know we should be. Better to whistle past that particular graveyard, thank you very much.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:04 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites]

Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

Replace "Konolia" with "wingnut fruitcake" and see how that reads.

Not that I'm equating the two of course.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful.

And, by all means, don't eat shrimp! God Hates Shrimp.
posted by ericb at 7:07 PM on November 2, 2006

God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person. Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right.

When you're making something up, you can make it up however you want. Fantasizing is cool until you mistake it for reality.
posted by jsonic at 7:09 PM on November 2, 2006

God hates figs.
posted by EarBucket at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Proof that fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible: A lesson about the book of Leviticus.
posted by ericb at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2006

"The moral hypocrisy and intellectual constipation of Bible literalists."
posted by ericb at 7:12 PM on November 2, 2006

From the comments on the onegoodmove video site: "Why is it when I look at Pastor Ted, I can't help but think: "This guy has had a man's dick in his asshole . . . many, many times . . .""
It'd be fine if it were a woman's dick, though.
posted by fish tick at 7:13 PM on November 2, 2006

Forget the men lying with men shctick ...

Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9).

A woman must not "teach or... have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12).

People must not "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19).

Men must not shave (Leviticus 19:27).

People must not eat rabbit (Leviticus 11:6), pork (Leviticus 11:7), or shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12).

It is "disgraceful" for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband.

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

The man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.
posted by ericb at 7:18 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

And what exactly did Jesus and those twelve single young virile men who followed him have to say about homosexuality anyway?
posted by ericb at 7:20 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Konolia, newsflash: not all gays wear horns and forked tails so as to be easily recognizable by good christian woman like yourself. Just a little tidbit of information to help you along your way.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:20 PM on November 2, 2006

"Replace 'homosexuality' with pedophilia and see how that reads. I am not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals go thru pain out of nonacceptance. I submit that pedophiles do as well. That does not mean that either act is acceptable or not sinful."

Oh, konolia, you just lost any shred of accountability you were striving for. You can go on with the ludicrous and patently false claim that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia (Criminology 101: the overwhelming percentage of pedophiles are heterosexual), but eventually reality is going to catch up to you.

And you were trying to convince people that you had gaydar and that you talk to gay people? Yeah, maybe you work for one of those ex-gay organizations.

I'm not surprised by your self-righteous and judgmental comments. It's typical of evangelicals, who from their holier-than-thou pedestals love to condemn others--and are the quickest to cry foul when someone accuses one of their own of hypocrisy. (See, for example, your defending Haggart. How does it feel to get a taste of your own medicine?)

By the way, you should check out the book WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. I think you'd be flabbergasted by how deeply you've been brainwashed.
posted by mijuta at 7:24 PM on November 2, 2006

Konolia: Not like you couldn't have figured this out or anything, but what the hell, here goes anyway.

You can determine what in your list is "a sin" (I'll use terms you're comfortable with here) or not without God's Law by examining if someone is harmed by it. So:

* Consenting adult gay couples have sex? No one harmed. Therefore no sin.

* Man has sex with child? Child is hurt. Therefore: Sin.

* Adultery: Usually the faithful spouse is hurt, and family stability in general is a good thing for society, so Sin. Extra bonus sin if you've screwed up a family with kids, who will also be hurt. And if you conduct your adultery as a public figure whose family will be totally dragged through the gutter in extremely public ways, well you've hit the sin jackpot.

* Murder: Person murdered is hurt, and also prevented from doing anything else they might have done in life, and so forth for ramifications that ripple far beyond that specific person. Usually murderer suffers quite a bit as well. So, also, sin.

What you see there above is a rational, internally consistent moral system, which does not depend on some imaginary being to lay down arbitrary rules. And it's probably worth noting that my system and yours agree on all those sins except the one in which no one is harmed. That is, teh gay.

I am fully aware that you can construct a moral system with a diety at the top of it, supposedly telling you what to do. When are you going to conquer your ignorance to the extent of realizing that you can also make one that does not involve a diety? I won't ask you to believe in it, but simply to acknowlege that it can be done.
posted by rusty at 7:25 PM on November 2, 2006

That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? You quitting your job because some random person accused you of something criminal and hypocritical? Unless there was, ya know, some merit. The guy obviously did it or he wouldn't have quit.

The bylaws [of the National Association of Evangelicals] state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave. The outside board makes the final decision.

now, which part of that do you not understand?
posted by quonsar at 7:25 PM on November 2, 2006

Sin is what God says it is. Period.
posted by konolia at 7:32 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Good thing we sorted that one out.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

Who is this 'God' character of which you speak?
posted by jettloe at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006

konolia: Awesome. More shrimp for me!
posted by rusty at 7:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

You know, that same gaydar that flashes a red light whenever an evangelical tells another man he's "bringing [his] desire to the surface so he can eliminate it," is the same gaydar that pings when I see GWB. Really.
posted by maxwelton at 7:36 PM on November 2, 2006

The bylaws [of the National Association of Evangelicals] state that when an allegation of immorality is made, this process is triggered, where he puts himself on leave.

Gaping Denial-of-Service Vulnerability. Good thing these people aren't in the software business.
posted by jsonic at 7:37 PM on November 2, 2006 [4 favorites]

But man has always determined what it is that God has "said".
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 7:38 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

And Ted Haggard is incapable of sin simply because he's a preacher? That's odd, because I seem to remember other men of God sinning. That said, skepicism is a good thing. I'm skeptical of this whole thing myself, but not because I think Haggard is incapable of sin.
posted by lekvar at 7:38 PM on November 2, 2006

Sin is what God says it is. Period.

Maybe so, but it probably isn't what you say it is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:39 PM on November 2, 2006 [3 favorites]

By the way, you should check out the book WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. I think you'd be flabbergasted by how deeply you've been brainwashed.

konolia -- a starting point: The Bible and Homosexuality.
posted by ericb at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

Wait wait wait, don't clergymen work on Sunday?
posted by peeedro at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

By the way, the last time we talked, God was bemused that we had set up such firm boundaries around these terms "gay" and "straight", so I'm not so sure God's conception of sin is quite what you think it is on that topic. But perhaps your conversations with God aren't are clear and cogent as mine have been. And, I mean, I asked directly. So I feel pretty confident.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:40 PM on November 2, 2006

odinsdream: Let's all be really quiet and see if we can hear what God's telling us!

Good advice!

odinsdream: Oh no - wait, he wrote it all down! Don't question why we think an ancient book of mythology was really actually written by God, though. Just assume it is. It's easier to not question anything.

That's how fundamentalists like konolia think, not how the Christian tradition has ever worked.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:42 PM on November 2, 2006

Konolia, your God says all of the things pasted below (courtesy of Ericb's post just above, which you ignored) are a sin.

Does this mean you are a sinner?

Also, I noticed on your profile that your nickname comes from your grandmother, who divorced twice. Isn't divorce a sin? Hmmm, maybe you'll be seeing your grandma in hell . . .

Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9).

A woman must not "teach or... have authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12).

People must not "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19).

Men must not shave (Leviticus 19:27).

People must not eat rabbit (Leviticus 11:6), pork (Leviticus 11:7), or shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12).

It is "disgraceful" for a woman to speak out in church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and that if she has any questions, she should wait till she gets home and ask her husband.

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

The man who rapes a virgin should buy her from her father (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and marry her.
posted by mijuta at 7:43 PM on November 2, 2006

taking joy in the pain of others is always wrong.
posted by koeselitz at 8:35 PM EST on November 2

I hear you and agree. However, when someone has been preaching hatred against a group of which he is a member, that tends to get folks riled. It's dishonest and evil. Reverend Al was out on the stump the other day with his speech about how evangelicals spend too much time on the sins of the bedroom while ignoring the sins of neglecting to care for the poor, the sick and the hungry. Jesus didn't make himself a big church to line his pockets, and he cared as much if not more for the least of society as for the winners, judgmental as he might be about morals. These scum who subvert that message for their own personal gain, and do it at the expense of anyone they can train their minions to hate are ripe for payback when their hypocrisy is revealed. Preaching hatred and lining your pockets in the name of the Lord is no path to Heaven. They will face their maker one day, but now, when their true colors are shown, they should not be surprised that people are angry.
posted by caddis at 7:46 PM on November 2, 2006

The penalty for going to work on Sunday (Exodus 35:1-3) is death.

um, sabbath was saturday. and Christ himself violated that law because - well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself. really, your ignorance of the topic is such that you're far better just shutting up.
posted by quonsar at 7:46 PM on November 2, 2006

When Jesus returns as a gay, black, homeless man with AIDS, these fundamentalists will be the first to hammer in those nails.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:49 PM on November 2, 2006 [7 favorites]

Does this mean you are a sinner?

absolutely. let he who is without it cast the first stone. what a bunch of barking monkeys in this thread.
posted by quonsar at 7:50 PM on November 2, 2006

Relinking to incredible video. Do you think when he looks in the camera he's really talking to this escort guy?
posted by MarkO at 7:51 PM on November 2, 2006

I noticed on your profile that your nickname comes from your grandmother, who divorced twice. Isn't divorce a sin?

Is divorce a sin?

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6).

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:9).

"Let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel..." (Malachi 2:15-16).

posted by ericb at 7:52 PM on November 2, 2006

Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. And then, some other group replaces you. Probably a politicized Church of SubGenius campaigning for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing right to slack.

As an atheist, Dawkins being taken down a notch I have no problem with. He doesn't exactly represent the most positive view of atheism. And a constitutional right to slack sounds damn good to me.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 7:54 PM on November 2, 2006

ericb: and yet man puts asunder pretty much everything God hath joined. and men are faithless to everything. y'all totally miss the point in your attempts to make yourselves feel clever and superior.
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on November 2, 2006

C'mon folks, give the man some credit. At least he was screwing grown men.

I don't get the "at least." What's wrong with what he did?

Or is my irony detector just miscalibrated?
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:44 AM ACST on November 3 [+] [!]

The last I checked prostitution was still a crime and adultery is usually considered rather bad. Now these two are certainly arguable, I know, but when you throw in the years of hypocrisy the trifecta makes for a rather shitty set of values there doncha think?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:57 PM on November 2, 2006

well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself. really, your ignorance of the topic is such that you're far better just shutting up.

Personally, I could care less about what the Bible actually says. I have a problem with people telling me how I should live my life based on their interpretation of passages from what they perceive to be a holy book by which one should adhere to leading their lives. It's the "our way or the highway bullshit" which often comes back to bite them in their hypocritical asses.

BTW -- since the modern Christian sabbath is Sunday, one can indeed reinterpret the original Greek/Hebrew translations to apply to our modern calendar.
posted by ericb at 7:58 PM on November 2, 2006

ericb: and yet man puts asunder pretty much everything God hath joined. and men are faithless to everything. y'all totally miss the point in your attempts to make yourselves feel clever and superior.

I don't feel clever or superior. By all means I bow to those with greater capacity to interpret their holy book for me! Thank you for your holy enlightenment.
posted by ericb at 7:59 PM on November 2, 2006

"Is Divorce A Sin -- In Jesus' name, David J. Stewart"

Argue with Dave, not me!
posted by ericb at 8:00 PM on November 2, 2006

quonstar: I was just riffing on how silly it was. It looks like most of ericb's canned in-your-face-isms are cut n paste from googling.
posted by peeedro at 8:03 PM on November 2, 2006

Does this mean you are a sinner?

to expand on what quonsar said above, Christians believe everyone is a sinner, with one exception (Jesus...'cept he did falter right there at the end, but that was necessary you see...). their faith is in the idea that God will forgive them their sin if they ask Him to do so, predicated on Jesus' descent to hell for 3 days (he did falter after all) being enough for everyone. so dear konolia can eat all the shrimp in the world if only she feels bad about it and believes that asking her ever loving God for forgiveness afterwards will clear her record in St. Peter's book of names.

I can get behind this idea--- it's a good one for coping with the freaky weird shit that life hands you day to day. my problem is with the associated evangelism, the idea that everyone must be in lockstep on it. in other words, I don't like evangelicals for their persistence with others despite the plank in their eye.
posted by carsonb at 8:05 PM on November 2, 2006

Does anyone hear the explicit echo of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in "I never had sex with a man in Denver"?

That Harper's article was one of the scariest things I've read in ages-- he's literally preaching that people should blame demons for the problems with America and thousands of people are buying it, along with a bizarre call for completely unregulated markets (do you think he really wants no FDA? even ultralibertarian Reason magazine doesn't want no FDA).

He preaches that we need to oppose homosexuality because the Bible opposes it-- but why isn't he out there stumping for the death penalty for not keeping the Sabbath or defying one's parents or adultery? Why isn't he supporting polygamy? The Bible advocates all of those things as well-- and while Jesus said no polygamy, he didn't say no gayness, so why are they "picking and chosing" what to follow from the Old Testament like some wimpy liberals?

Yeah, the hypocrisy makes me ill and while taking joy in someone's downfall (the newspapers wouldn't have gone with these accounts if they didn't have or know of serious evidence to support the guy's claims-- they're far too afraid of lawsuits) is indeed wrong, celebrating a return perhaps to reason and to government at least checked by some sane people is perfectly acceptable.
posted by Maias at 8:06 PM on November 2, 2006

Google is your friend. But are not these proscriptions accurate and from the Bible?

"Exodus 35

1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.

2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

Seventh Day -- Saturday or Sunday -- who cares? Oh, enlighten us, oh holy ones!
posted by ericb at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2006

this thread is surprisingly gay.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:07 PM on November 2, 2006

Christians believe everyone is a sinner

Depends on which brand of Chistianity you are buying here doesn't it?

Some believe they are without sin and the non-believers are the sinners. Others are the origional sin types. Some believe that we would be doomed sinners if not for the sacrifice of Jeebus. The list goes on...
posted by Pollomacho at 8:09 PM on November 2, 2006

Just because it looks like this guy was a big hypocrite who failed to follow his own religion as closely as he warned others to do does not mean folks should be in here trashing religion. They hypocrisy is with Haggard and even perhaps with his rigid and market driven interpretation of Christianity. Please show some respect for people and their beliefs. The same way I respect your decision to not believe, please respect mine to believe. I seek not to impose my belief upon you, and please seek not to impose yours upon me. I am up for a polite engagement upon the subject, but please save your histrionics for your interactions with your parents for taking away your tv.
posted by caddis at 8:11 PM on November 2, 2006

heh. waaaay off topic, but I was bugged by my sentence construction there at the end last comment. I wish I'd put it in a way that allowed use of the term 'plankeye', which had some resonance with me. I wondered at that, and it took me a few minutes to bring up the memory of that same-styled Christian rock band.
posted by carsonb at 8:11 PM on November 2, 2006

well, if you wanted to know you'd read the damn thing yourself.

Problem is, when people actually do read the damned thing, as ericb has done, it actually says a lot of awful things that few of its proponents care to acknowledge. It's dishonest, but then when homosexuality gets compared with pedophilia, what can you expect?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2006

Does anyone hear the explicit echo of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in "I never had sex with a man in Denver"?

Queerty.com headline: "I Did Not Having Sexual Relations With That Hooker"
posted by ericb at 8:12 PM on November 2, 2006

whoa ! slow down people i'm trying to read and eat pie.
posted by nola at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2006

gay shrimp pie.
posted by nola at 8:13 PM on November 2, 2006

"Cut n paste from googling"? Horrors!

Konolia was claiming the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.

EricB was showing that the Bible states a lot of ridiculous things are sinful.

An easy way to get biblical quotes quickly is to use The Google.
posted by mijuta at 8:14 PM on November 2, 2006

God has impressed the natural law upon the heart of every person.

For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' -- Mark 17:21-23

Emphasis mine
posted by boaz at 8:14 PM on November 2, 2006

For ericb and mijuta, you might note that very observant Jews keep some of those things you list. See numbers 367 and 345, for example. They aren't all necessarily discarded bits of the Bible.

Of course, for Jesus' teachings on the Law of Moses (the source of the Leviticus and Deuteronomy quotes), you might see the ever-excellent Brick Testament.
posted by Upton O'Good at 8:15 PM on November 2, 2006

I wish I'd put it in a way that allowed use of the term 'plankeye', which had some resonance with me. I wondered at that, and it took me a few minutes to bring up the memory of that same-styled Christian rock band.

Heh. I vaguely remember them.
posted by EarBucket at 8:16 PM on November 2, 2006

Heck -- if someone had used Wikipedia^{^} as a source, someone might have charged that the biblical passages were fake and made-up "in-your-face-isms!"
posted by ericb at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006

Maias: the newspapers wouldn't have gone with these accounts if they didn't have or know of serious evidence to support the guy's claims-- they're far too afraid of lawsuits

That sounds implausible to me. In the U.S. it seems that all the papers wait until the first one publishes a sleazy story, and then the rest feel free to report it because it is now a news story. The standards for libel in the U.S. are pretty strict, and so long as the papers are not misrepresenting what this accuser is saying, I don't see how they could be risking legal trouble. Does anyone here have any real legal knowledge in this area?

I mentioned earlier that I'd had a false accusation made against me. Local newspapers at the time reported the accusation without any support beyond the fact that someone had made the accusation. Are you saying I could have sued them after it became clear that my accuser was mentally unstable and was lying? That sounds really, really implausible to me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006

Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

Interesting how you seem to be drawing an equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. As though the very notion of consent is meaningless.

And don't try to sweep it under the theological rug by dissembling and hand-waving of the type of "as far as God is concerned all sin is equal."

I'd just like you to come out and say it.

As far as you're concerned, are they, or are they not equivalent?
posted by chimaera at 8:17 PM on November 2, 2006

gay shrimp pie

Mmmm...in addition to shrimp bread at Jazz Fest, me loves shrimp po-boys when in New Orleans.
posted by ericb at 8:20 PM on November 2, 2006

it's a pie made with tastie gay shrimp. i know , i watched the gay shrimp suck each other off , right before i made the pie. so i'm sure it's gay shrimp pie.


want a slice?
posted by nola at 8:21 PM on November 2, 2006

Google is your friend. But are not these proscriptions accurate and from the Bible?

yes, they are from the Bible. presumably, yes, they are accurately quoted (though from which translation? and how accurate can that be after a coupla millenia?). the problem is that quoting the Bible this way leaves out context, which any spin technician can tell you is a great way to get a rise outta people.

if your point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally (commandments and beattitues aside), bravo. otherwise, leave off.
posted by carsonb at 8:21 PM on November 2, 2006

I think the point is that SOME of the bible passages are taken literally by people like konolia and Haggard, etc. The ones that suit their needs. The others are "open to interpretation". Either that or they are not mentioned at all.
posted by c13 at 8:25 PM on November 2, 2006

if your point is that the Bible is not to be taken literally (commandments and beattitues aside), bravo. otherwise, leave off.

It is. And as a gay man, I resent those who seek to relegate me as a second-class citizen with unequal rights in the "land of the free and home of the brave."

If they can live lives of sin and be free, let me do the same. Fuck 'em, if they can't see the hypocrisy of those who lead them -- whether in their church (Haggard, assuming the allegations prove to be true) and our government (Foley et al).
posted by ericb at 8:25 PM on November 2, 2006 [5 favorites]

has any deleted thread ever been resurrected, in the history of MetaFilter?

There is also an occluded thread about the 12th Imam that will, uh, unocclude one day.
posted by Falconetti at 8:26 PM on November 2, 2006

i'll drink to that.
posted by nola at 8:27 PM on November 2, 2006

The guy in that painting from New Life Church looks suspiciously like Scott Bakula...

Hey wait a minute! This is an artist's rendering of chapter 7 from my Quantumn Leap fanfic novel, Al's Well that Ends Well!
posted by nomad at 8:27 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

No surprize. Wealth, power, prestige, corruption and lust are merely different petals on the same turd blossom.
posted by chance at 8:28 PM on November 2, 2006

"Sin is what God says it is. Period."

You talk to him/her/it? You should start a megachurch.
posted by lordrunningclam at 8:30 PM on November 2, 2006

Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts, but we also can twist it and distort it and convince ourselves that things are right that are really wrong. As a result, conscience is not always right, even though it is always wrong not to follow your conscience, even when your conscience is wrong. The disagreements between the details of the various ways the Christian tradition has thought about these matters are complicated, and nothing we can settle here, but the struggle between good and evil within the human heart is also complicated, so there's something appropriate about that complexity.

The story fundamentalists tell is far too simple, not to mention too easily twisted in the hands of individual preachers. By the way, the spectacle of theological illiterates googling for proof texts is pathetic. Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:33 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

"{My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it."

This thread has brought me tears of laughter. Y'know that just because Nathan Lane's a flamer doesn't mean that there aren't total homos all around you, right? They're the crypto-queers and they drink blood!

"not all gays wear horns and forked tails so as to be easily recognizable by good christian woman like yourself."

The Russian gays have stripes!

"Sin is what God says it is. Period."

Too bad yer playin' some kinda Chinese telephone with 'im.
posted by klangklangston at 8:35 PM on November 2, 2006

Google is your friend.
Gaygle is your special friend.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:36 PM on November 2, 2006

If they can live lives of sin and be free, let me do the same.

amen.
posted by carsonb at 8:37 PM on November 2, 2006

Wikipedia has this up already, but:
Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:41 PM on November 2, 2006

From TIME: 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America (1/30/05):

OPENING UP THE UMBRELLA GROUP: Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals ... Every Monday he is one of just a handful of evangelical leaders patched into a conference call with West Wing staffers to discuss policy concerns. “We wanted him (Bush) to use the force of his office to campaign aggressively for a federal marriage amendment, which he did not do,” says Haggard. He is working to broaden his group’s agenda. “With the growth of evangelicalism worldwide,” says Haggard, “we need to impact the culture worldwide.”
posted by scblackman at 8:41 PM on November 2, 2006

Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

that would require thinking ... people's heads might get hurt
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 PM on November 2, 2006

posted by squirrel at 8:51 PM on November 2, 2006

Hm. Funny img worked in preview. Oh well.
posted by squirrel at 8:52 PM on November 2, 2006

"By the way, the spectacle of theological illiterates googling for proof texts is pathetic. Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?"

Well see, Peeping Thomist, the thing is that this is an online discussion in which time is of the essence. So if someone were to go to divinity school and become as enlightened as you, it would be years before they could post comments as brilliant as yours.

In essence, I believe EricB's only goal--as is mine--is to show that the Bible describes some pretty ridiculous stuff as sinful.

I can't speak for EricB's theological knowledge. I myself was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school for the majority of my education, and have read and studied the Bible more than a few times. I'm well aware that the Bible was written by different people at different periods in time, that the issue of translation raises many thorny questions, that there are large sections of biblical writings that aren't in "the Bible," etc.

I'm not trying to prove by posting on this thread that I'm a biblical scholar or that I know more about religion than anyone else. I'm just countering a statement made by an evangelical who claims (among other things) that homosexuality is a sin.
posted by mijuta at 8:55 PM on November 2, 2006

Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

No! See, we have better things to do. Not because "thinking may hurt our heads" or some such shit, but because I'd say pretty much all of us thought about religion and found it was not for us, for whatever reasons. So learning the religious texts just so we can have conversations with you people is a waste of time for us. We disagree with your views. You disagree with ours. And that's fine. But the thing is, you're bothering us.
We don't dress up in white shirts and black pants, hop on a bike and come knocking on your door to talk about the wonders of atheism or agnosticism. We don't stand on street corners and hand out cheap copies of Origin of Species. Nor do we get on national TV or trash the shortwave spectrum with ravings about how Darwin is "teh kewl". We don't care which hole your stick your dicks in, who you live with and how you designate yourself on tax forms. And we want the same of you. Read your bible, play with snakes, go to church. You thing we'll burn in hell? Fine. More room for you in heaven. Just stay the fuck away from us. That is really all we want. It's too late to have nice polite discussions -- you've annoyed the hell out of us.
posted by c13 at 8:59 PM on November 2, 2006 [11 favorites]

It's a well known fact that the Bible is God's direct word, but once those words have been fetched from Google's cache, something happens to them that makes them lose their spark of divinity.
posted by rks404 at 9:01 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

When I was younger, I decided to read the bible. I admit that I was pretty prejudiced: based on the few stories that I'd heard, and what people said about it, I fully expected it to be filled with deep, moral lessons. I was completely horrified by what I found. By the time I got to the book of Joshua, it was pretty obvious that my expectations were just plain wrong. I never felt any need to memorize sections of the bible (even before I grew disenchanted with it, as I just don't memorize things that I can easily look up). That said, I remember the gist of many parts. When I want to quote accurately (because gods forbid I should misquote) I google-search to get the exact text. Presumably this is what ericb did.

Instead of mocking the use of google, why don't you address his points? You say that they're out of context? Try supplying the context then. I'm familiar with that section of the bible. It's just plain terrible. The quotes were not out of context. I'm aware that there are numerous christian traditions that explain why christians don't follow Leviticus. I'd like an explanation of how you can follow part but not all of it.
posted by Humanzee at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006

Konolia was claiming the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin.
EricB was showing that the Bible states a lot of ridiculous things are sinful.

mijuta: sounds like a waste of time to me. One side points to the Bible for guidance while the other side pointing to the Bible to show that the Bible isn't the best place to go far advice on how to live your life. How can that ever lead to any discourse, let alone have any hope of broadening a person's perspectives?
posted by peeedro at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006

Technically if you go by that one passage in Leviticus it is only bisexuality that is a sin -- "lay with a man as with a woman". And to take the argument to the pedantic level, it's really only wrong if you have anal sex with the ladies as well as the gents.
posted by clevershark at 9:04 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

The main reason to believed the accusations is that the Denver Post is reporting them. They investigated for 2 months. There must be another shoe to drop!
posted by LarryC at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2006

I don't know about gaydar, but my "sleazdar" pinged loudly whenever I saw this guy interviewed on TV. Maybe it was just the funny flare in his upper lip, but his untimely shit-eating grin added to the effect (no pun intended, really). My biggest hope is that this blows the doors off the Christian-Right-Republican's "big tent" myth.
posted by Dougoh at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2006

"I never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver." ≈ "It depends on what the meaning of the word jizz is."
posted by rob511 at 9:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [2 favorites]

Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts, but we also can twist it and distort it and convince ourselves that things are right that are really wrong.

Yes, I've talked to plenty of Christians who like to claim that God is that voice in your heart .... except when it's telling you to fuck gay prostitutes. One's heart, I suppose, is always divided against itself.

Can people really not be bothered to learn something substantial about views they disagree with?

You don't have to know the difference between a tertiary progression and a solar return to know that astrology is bullshit.
posted by boaz at 9:11 PM on November 2, 2006

ericb & co.:

Your examples are from the Old Testament, mostly from Leviticus. Almost all Christians believe that those proscriptions were superseded by the new covenant of the New Testament. Yes, there's stuff about homosexuality in the Old Testament, but that's as irrelevant as the stuff about shellfish, mixing fibers, leprosy, whatever; those rules don't apply anymore. This is a gigantic point, and I can't believe nobody's made it yet here.

Think of it like a contract. God made a contract with the Israelites, and so those were the rules in play for a long time. Then Christ made a new contract with God's people; the old contract has been replaced by the new one. The new one is like an edited version of the old -- it incorporates some of the old version's big elements, definitely, but not every detail was carried over.

There's also some stuff about homosexuality in the New Testament, though -- in Corinthians.* That's what almost all of the modern Christian condemnation of homosexuality is based on. If you want to be all "Durr hurr, you don't follow your own rules," look through Paul's letters and find rules from there that fundamentalists don't seem to be following (you won't have any trouble doing that). Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

*There are still plenty of problems with this. First, many Christians don't believe Paul was infallible. And second, whoa boy translation issues.

Please take this opportunity to find out what you're talking about.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:15 PM on November 2, 2006

knoalia: I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

Worst... justification... ever.

My gaydar has missed some notable gay men, and triggered on some notable straight men.

Besides, do any of you believe for a minute that if this was true it would take THREE FREAKING YEARS for it to come to light????? As well known as he is????

Given how thick the culture of silence is, yes. Do I think these accusations are true? Don't know. I'm not going to be surprised either way.

dw: Enjoy it, because soon enough Richard Dawkins is going to be spotted having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes.

Except that I don't think that there is a taboo among atheists for having gay sex with a Jehovah's Witness (does ex-Pentacostal count?) or saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes. For that matter, I can even say the Lord's Prayer with a reasonable lack of fear that I won't be inflicted with boils or turned into salt.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2006

The guy in that painting from New Life Church looks suspiciously like Scott Bakula...

What I wanna know is, what's with the mallet he's holding? Did he get killed by Donkey Kong?
posted by you just lost the game at 9:16 PM on November 2, 2006

Wow, jeez, sorry everyone for the callout on ericb for using the google. As mush as I disagree with her, I though that shooting down Konolia through personal attacks against her grandmother and dueling Bible verses with her were in poor form. I guess all bets are off when we have Christians on the loose.
posted by peeedro at 9:18 PM on November 2, 2006

God made a contract with the Israelites, and so those were the rules in play for a long time. Then Christ made a new contract with God's people; the old contract has been replaced by the new one.

Well, the Muslims would argue that THAT "new contract" has itself been superseded by yet another.
posted by clevershark at 9:20 PM on November 2, 2006

Peeedro, you're missing the point entirely. It's really very simple.

Konolia claims homosexuality is a sin.

I claim that's pretty ridiculous. Just look at all these other things the Bible says is a sin. Could it be that you're cherry picking?

The End. See, that's it!

In other words: Konolia wasn't pointing to the Bible for guidance--she was pointing to it to condemn me and other gay people.

And I wasn't claiming the Bible isn't the best place to go for advice on how to live your life. Again, see above.

As for "discourse," I think Konolia pretty much shut down when people started asking her real questions and she claimed sin is what her God says it is.

Again, I'm not anti-Bible or anti-religion. I'm against people equating homosexuality with sinfulness and pedophilia.
posted by mijuta at 9:20 PM on November 2, 2006

Try supplying the context then...I'd like an explanation of how you can follow part but not all of it.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or someone else, so I'll just say that I'll only go so far playing the apologist for a religion I'm no longer a paying member of. well, that, and what I meant by context is it's important to make the distinction between the Old and New Testaments when discussing Christianity via Bible quotes.
posted by carsonb at 9:21 PM on November 2, 2006

Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2006

I met him a decade ago. Along with my husband I talked to him one on one. My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

I call bullshit on your gaydar. And your God. I'm very curious about when the last time God talked to you and told you what sin was.

I'm reminded of Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment:

On Commandments
"This is a holy book with an appendix?"
"Exactly, sir."
"In a ring binder?"

-----
On Abominations
Vimes: "The colour blue?"
Chinney: "Correct, sir."
Vimes: "What's abominable about the colour blue? It's just a colour! The sky is blue!"
Chinney: "Yes, sir. Devout Nugganites try not to look at it these days."

------
More On Abominations
"So what we have here is a country that tries to run itself on the commandments of a god who, the people feel, may be wearing his underpants on his head. Has he Abominated underpants?"

"No, sir," Chinny sighed. "But it's probably only a matter of time."
posted by smallerdemon at 9:22 PM on November 2, 2006

Humanzee: Instead of mocking the use of google, why don't you address his points? You say that they're out of context? Try supplying the context then.

The "context" is that these books didn't fall from the sky, and you have to look at how they've been read within the communities that took the trouble to preserve them if you want to figure out what they mean. Your decision when you were younger to "read the Bible," as though "the Bible" were a single work, speaks well of your good intentions, but highlights the abject cultural deprivation that is the only "context" many bright and serious young people today have ever known.

Did you know that until as late as the 12th century, no one ever had a copy of "the Bible" as a single document? There was an agreed-upon list of texts in the canon, and monasteries copied these texts and made sure that each monastery had a complete set of the texts on the list. The idea that "the Bible" is a single work, and that hence the right way to read it is to sit down and start with Genesis and end with Revelations, is one of the many bad fruits of fundamentalism. People like Haggard and konolia are largely to blame for the fact that when you were younger it seemed reasonable to just pick up "the Bible" and start reading. You soon came to see what a misguided decision that was, but I don't think you yet understand why.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:24 PM on November 2, 2006

"I thought that shooting down Konolia through personal attacks against her grandmother and dueling Bible verses with her were in poor form."

Peeedo, maybe you'd feel differently if you were gay. Because when someone equates you with a pedophile--well, it's a pretty brutal insult. And then to also claim that you're going to hell because of who you are? Yeah, that's not very nice either. Frankly, I think Konolia--and her grandmother--got off pretty easy. As for the dueling Bible verses, not sure why you think that's in poor form. I think it's in poor form that Konolia never answered anyone else's posts. But I think evangelicals are used to hiding out when confronted with reality.
posted by mijuta at 9:30 PM on November 2, 2006

I guess all bets are off when we have Christians on the loose.

Bullshit. All bets are off when someone deliberately decides to trot out the old "homosexuality is no different from pedophilia" canard.
posted by clevershark at 9:30 PM on November 2, 2006

Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.

right up there with KJV.
posted by carsonb at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2006

Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

Right. Except what Jesus said on that subject was:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That's Matthew 5:17-20 for those interested.
posted by boaz at 9:31 PM on November 2, 2006

Boaz, did you cut and paste those lines from The Google? Because when you do that it makes them "lose their spark of divinity."
posted by mijuta at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006

If people want to pray and be afraid of god and follow arbitrary rules that don't seem to express the love, forgiveness and downright self-determination that my understanding of the concept of Jesus allows, well then god bless 'em, as long as everybody is a consenting adult, super duper. Just leave me and mine out of it. As several people upthread have said the issue is people imposing their beliefs on others. Fuck that shit.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006

I think it's in poor form that Konolia never answered anyone else's posts.

Agreed. Accusing people of being pedophiles is not a very Christian thing to do.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:34 PM on November 2, 2006

Enough with the Bible, or I start quoting the Fellowship of the Ring. They are equally accurate.

What this is really about is Evangelical Christianity, because no other mainstream christian faith takes the Bible, and the old testament in particular, literally. Evangelical christianity is predomionately the religion of the weak, the 12-steppers and the insulated kids and adults who do not want to engage the Other, or own up to their own shitty behavior.

Don't believe me? This is what Haggard said:
2. If reporters want to interview you, talk with them, but use words that make sense to them. Speak their language. Don't talk about the devil, demons, voices speaking to you, God giving you supernatural revelations, etc. Instead, tell your personal story in common sense language (I was a drunk but God changed me and now I'm sober, I'm grateful, etc.).

How the hell can he generalize that most people's personal stories will be that they were drunks, unless he knows that most of the people in his church get there by way of some AA type group.

The president, Evangelical poster-child, found Jesus when he was 40 because he couldn't stop drinking. No crisis of faith, no outrage at God for the atrocities of the world, no questioning his place in the world. He just couldn't stop drinking Wild Turkey.

So what does he do? He abandons his entire world-view to conform to the letter to a fringe religion. He basically admits taht he can't think for himself or make decisions about his own life, and decides never to do so again, but rather will let the book do his thinking for him.

I've said this before and I'll say it forever. If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve. Being born again doesn't erase your past, and it sure as hell doen't make you holier than me.

It makes you weak, and pathetic.

The ultimate "sin" is wanting to say no to something but doing it anyway. You know you shouldn't take that drink, but you do it anyway. That's the ultimate sin, because it is a perversion of the ultimate expression of our humanity - free will. If you need an imaginary beared white God or the bible study group to stop your drinking, then you're turning your free will over to someone else. That's a sin. It's an admission that you can't handle being human and that you don't want to try.

Two people having sex is not a sin. Please get that through your thick skulls before we have to ram it through with a brick.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [17 favorites]

did you cut and paste those lines from The Google?

Don't you think there's a difference between a quotation from the Bible and a copying some else's summary of some verses?
posted by peeedro at 9:36 PM on November 2, 2006

Well, the Muslims would argue that THAT "new contract" has itself been superseded by yet another.

No, they wouldn't. They argue that Jesus was a prophet just like Muhammad, Moses, Adam or John the Baptist. The Christians have just misinterprited and distorted what Jesus taught.

Um, p_T, the Tanakh has been fairly set for the last 2000 years or so, it's this new fangled testement that gives folks trouble.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:39 PM on November 2, 2006

This thread has been so enlightening, informative, and reasoned. People aren't being emotional or irrational. And no insulting intelligence or other users.

It makes we wish we could discuss religion EVERY! SINGLE! DAY! on MetaFilter.
posted by dw at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2006

"Two people having sex is not a sin. Please get that through your thick skulls before we have to ram it through with a brick."

Pastabagel, God bless you.
posted by mijuta at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2006

Thanks for the note, quansar, on the rules of the National Assocation of Evangelicals (NAoE?)- that helps put it into perspective why the guy would randomly resign if he says he didn't do it. Ugh, these situations are always so sad. Someone is straight up lying, and everyone gets hurt in the process- the church, the community, the families. Even if this isn't true, it'll be a cloud over his head for life. I hope the truth, the real truth, whatever that is, comes to the light.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:42 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

Don't you think there's a difference between a quotation from the Bible and a copying some else's summary of some verses?

To be clear, Boaz's quote was of a specific translation of the Bible, not a "summary". If a particular translation of the Bible invalidates boaz's quote, then all other translations invalidate every other interpretation, quotation and rationalization made so far, including those cited by the fundamentalists and apologists here in this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006

Quonsar, you're damn right I feel superior to someone, anyone, who bases their life and income on telling others how to live their lives while simultaneously engaging in what he says other people are going to hell for.

If these allegations are false ones, so be it. The guy is still reprehensible for spewing the very hate that his Jesus tried to quell here on earth.

As for the by-laws of the Evangelicals, please. Here, you sound like you could use a week off -- "I saw quonsar sucking cock." Totally false of course, but it must be investigated to save the children.
posted by bardic at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006

the Muslims would argue

And the Mormons. And, I'm sure, plenty of groups we've never heard of. But nobody here is talking about them, and that's not what I was trying to explain.

Translation: I don't like it when non-Christians pick and choose parts of the Bible to point out hypocrisy, but it's okay for Christians to pick and choose parts of the Bible to be hypocritical about.

It's not "picking and choosing." The Bible is cut in half. The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising? It's not like Christians are saying, "Well, this verse counts, but the one next to it doesn't, but the one after it does" like it's handy to claim. The justification for privileging the new covenant is within the Bible.

Right. Except what Jesus said on that subject was..."I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Fun fact: The word used for "fulfill" can also be translated as "properly explain." Also you get discrepancies like promoting six commandments rather than ten, declaring foods clean that were forbidden in the OT, and so on. A whole lot more, for those interested. The bottom line is that there have been probably billions of words written about this, but my understanding is that it is generally accepted by most modern Christians that the new covenant supersedes the old. (Obviously, I don't know what konolia or Haggard or anyone else in particular believes.)
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:43 PM on November 2, 2006

An interesting "take" on the Haggard situation -- worth the read.
posted by ericb at 9:44 PM on November 2, 2006

What is it with high-level right wingers and gay escorts?
posted by cell divide at 9:48 PM on November 2, 2006

Nitpick: Muslims consider Jesus worthy of reverence as a prophet, but he is not the prophet (Allah's prophet).
posted by bardic at 9:49 PM on November 2, 2006

The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising?

I formally invite you to the next gay pride parade here in Philadelphia. We'll walk along the fringes where the wingnuts hold their Leviticus signs high. Or perhaps it will suffice to introduce you to the Constitution Party, which holds numerous Old Testament edicts to heart and promised capital punishment of homosexuals for whomever would have elected them in the 2004 Presidential elections. I won't bother to link to Christian fundamentalist, white supremacist sites. When it comes to rationalizing hatred, any part of the Bible has and will continute to do just fine.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:53 PM on November 2, 2006

Boaz - Matthew 5:17 is quite easy to take out of context, but it is generally understood to refer to the ten commandments, not the entire 5 books of Moses. And it's more about Jesus explaining the law, i.e. the OT prophets got it wrong, and he is setting it right.

booksandlibretti:

And the Mormons. And, I'm sure, plenty of groups we've never heard of. But nobody here is talking about them, and that's not what I was trying to explain.

Amen to that. And what about those who came before, in China and India, for example? What about the Greeks? Western Civilization is based almost entirely on the foundations of greek philosophy, particularly aristole and plato (who btw was bisexual), and they get scarce mention in the OT or the NT.

This literal interpretation of the Bible is not merely a choice of religion - it is a refutation of nearly all of philosophy and psychology. It is basically an admission that no other book or writing can illuminate the human condition, only what is written in the Bible can.

It is anti-intellecualism at its utmost.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:54 PM on November 2, 2006

booksandlibretti, you make a good point (and a simpler one would be to quote the parable of the new wine bursting the old wineskins), but for some further context, consider that many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts. They constantly bleat about the need for "old school" moral codes like the one Moses laid out. While I appreciate what you're saying, methinks you're giving them a bit too much credit regarding their imagined desire to have a serious and historically valid discussion about revealed religion. More often, they want to hit people over the head with exactly the sorts of ridiculous OT rules to gain political points, but lo and behold when you point out that anyone who eats a lobster will have to be stoned to death, they tend to get huffy or, like our friend Konolia, disappear. While personal attacks aren't warranted (I do wonder if she thinks a twice-divorced person has any chance to make it out of hell), pointing out her bullshit is entirely appropriate.
posted by bardic at 9:57 PM on November 2, 2006

I won't bother to link to Christian fundamentalist, white supremacist sites.

I will -- but, just to one -- Fred Phelps' and the Westboro Baptist Church's God Hates Fags -- so full of Christian love and tolerance.
posted by ericb at 9:57 PM on November 2, 2006

And has been mentioned, callling a large number of mefites pederasts pales in comparison to any "hurt" she might suffer from literate non-Christians pointing out some glaring flaws in her logic. Actually, it's not logic at all. It's irrational braying.
posted by bardic at 9:58 PM on November 2, 2006

peeping_Thomist: I am well aware of the history of the bible, and how it was pieced together. It seems that you're trying to convince me not to take it literally. Trust me, you don't have to try very hard. My WHOLE POINT (and I strongly suspect, ericb's as well) is that those who want to take it literally (like many do, including most american christian homophobes), should take the whole damned thing literally.

If you want to interpret the bible, go ahead. I won't even argue with you about it (too much), because I personally don't care. On the other hand, if you're interpreting the bible, and preaching hatred of gays, simply producing a quote in the bible that is anti-gay is -by your own methodology- theologically unsound.
posted by Humanzee at 9:59 PM on November 2, 2006

I just realized that I sounded unnecessarily acusatory. I meant "if someone is preaching hatred of gays", not specifically peeping_Thomist.
posted by Humanzee at 10:02 PM on November 2, 2006

Pollomacho: Um, p_T, the Tanakh has been fairly set for the last 2000 years or so, it's this new fangled testement that gives folks trouble.

My point was that no one ever had all the books on either list, either the Hebrew canon or the Christian canon, in a single package before the 12th century, and even after that it was unusual until the Gutenberg revolution. The separate books in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament were copied and read separately. To heft "the Bible" and wave it in the air would have been impossible, because it would have been dozens of different scrolls, not a single book, "the Book". Humanzee's decision when he was young to pick up "the Bible" and read "it" was something that just doesn't make any sense unless you've been influenced by fundamentalist nonsense about "the Bible" as something that is to be read apart from Tradition.

When St. Augustine in his famous conversion scene heard the children chanting "tolle, lege!"--"pick up and read!"--what he picked up and read was a copy of the letters of St. Paul. He didn't pick up "the Bible".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:05 PM on November 2, 2006

Off-topic, but likely of interest, since Foley has been discussed in this thread --

No Foley Ethics Report Before Election Day -- "Lack of report could leave voters wondering."
posted by ericb at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2006

I say, it is great fun to watch the wheels come off the right-wing political religious train. Gosh, it would be nice to see a higher level of sanity in this society.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:07 PM on November 2, 2006

but for some further context, consider that many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts.

bardic - I'm with you right up to here. The Evangelical movement has nothing to do with religion. It is about money and power. Don't compare it to the catholic church, cmopare it to walmart.

They want kids dumb because only dumb kids will go to these churches willingly and will grow up and give them money. Think about it: Pat robertson has been on TV for more than a generation - the adults that give him money now were kids that were being bible-programmed to be dumb.

The stuff about moral codes is all about sex. If women are comfortable having sex recreationally and without anxiety, it's game over for these churches, because these women are going to be moms that will raise normal children. These women cannot be controlled by their husbands, because if their husbands are assholes to them, they'll feel justified in cheating. In other words, these women will not be content to stand by their man but will rather continue to look for love if they can't find it at home, because they will think they are entitled to love, and they are, but that doesn't sit well with the marry-and-forget evangelical model.

Every religion in the world has something, some philosophical or spiritual point, to contribute to the world. Except evangelicism. That's religion with the spirituality sucked out and reduced to a set of procedures.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:09 PM on November 2, 2006

My gaydar works just fine and his did not ping it.

How does one learn, I wonder, when one's gaydar, which one thinks is "working fine," is actually allowing gay people to pass unnoticed? How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is? If you're only getting confirmation from folks you already see as gay, isn't that something of a skewed sample?

Yes, it is. In fact, it is clear that none of us truly knows exactly how well our gaydar is working.

*slams beer down on table*
posted by mediareport at 10:18 PM on November 2, 2006

Humanzee: If you're interpreting the bible, and preaching hatred of gays, simply producing a quote in the bible that is anti-gay is -by your own methodology- theologically unsound.

We agree on that!

I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong. I also think it's important to formulate this claim in a way that does not single out for special criticism people whose sexual sins tend to involve members of the same sex. In any case, the notion that such matters could be settled via proof texts and google searches is largely due to the harmful influence of fundamentalism on our culture.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:19 PM on November 2, 2006

How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is?

Take the Gaydar Test!
posted by ericb at 10:21 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong.

So Abraham and David were sinners? Ancient Hebrews had multiple wives. God, apparently, didn't have a problem with that (he had lots to say about how you treat them, of course).

Your theology is both obvious and tedious to anyone who's taken an intro philosophy course.
posted by bardic at 10:26 PM on November 2, 2006

I also think it's important to formulate this claim in a way that does not single out for special criticism people whose sexual sins tend to involve members of the same sex.

Too late!

Take the Gaydar Test!

Man, what I always suspected is true. I have absolutely no Gaydar. 50% on the nose.
posted by boaz at 10:27 PM on November 2, 2006

Sorry, that came out far too harsh. But I think you're assuming non-Christians in this thread aren't up on textual and historical controversies regarding scripture, and that would be wildly incorrect.
posted by bardic at 10:29 PM on November 2, 2006

Could you have picked up and read in one tome "Aristotle" before the 12th century? The history of book-binding and the history of the books of the bible are separate issues.

There were those in Jesus's time, according to the accounts in the gospels anyway or if you look at the Talmud, that were nit-picking those scrolls so inferring that literal translation four-square fundamentalists is something new and only extant since the 12th century just doesn't hold water. Sure it has an even more ridiculous air now that they are working off translations of translations of translations of rewritten copies of jotted oral tradition, but they aren't the first to nit-pick nor did it start with book-binding.

Incidentally, if you go up into the Tibetan hills you can still find living monasteries where monks meticulously protect, defend, maintain and copy manuscript scrolls. They too heatedly argue about single lines of translated translations of jotted down translations of jotted down interpritations of legendary stories about a great traveling speaker they call Buddha.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2006

Other rules from Leviticus, or the rest of the OT, are irrelevant here.

You mean rules like the 10 commandments?
posted by stirfry at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2006

It is not the place of religion to use the law to render moral judgement. That is God's domain, not mankind's.

It's a distinction one wishes more churches would use as a guiding principal. I do recall a bible passage in which Christ himself tells his crew to keep out of politics, "render unto Cæser" and all that.

It occurs to me that we should be calling the evangels 'Paulinists', not Christians. Eversomany of them are much more about Paul's rantings, and much less about Christ's actions.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:34 PM on November 2, 2006

Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God [...]

LOL XIANS
posted by oncogenesis at 10:35 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

bardic: God, apparently, didn't have a problem with that

Jesus says God allowed some things that were not part of the original plan for humanity, and that God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he "didn't have a problem with it," but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:38 PM on November 2, 2006

The more recent half is generally held to be more relevant. Is it that surprising? ... [M]y understanding is that it is generally accepted by most modern Christians that the new covenant supersedes the old. -- me

I formally invite you to the next gay pride parade here in Philadelphia. We'll walk along the fringes where the wingnuts hold their Leviticus signs high. -- Blazecock Pileon

You're gonna find some people doing anything; I thought I was pretty careful to hedge. My impression is that a large majority of Christians today are more about the NT than the OT. You are going to get sects like Messianic "Jews" who outright disagree. And you'll also get a few of what I think you've seen -- people who hear "homosexuality is wrong" from their minister (based on Corinthians) and run home and Google for bible gays bad and use whatever they can find without worrying about the context. I guess a third category would be people like Phelps who just try to use whatever they can get their hands on to justify their irrational beliefs without worrying about theology or internal consistency, but their brains operate so differently from mine that I don't think I can understand them. And again, they're a tiny, tiny fringe minority.

you make a good point (and a simpler one would be to quote the parable of the new wine bursting the old wineskins) -- bardic

You're perfectly right, but I have no real desire to get into parables with this crowd if I can avoid it. I did some preliminary Googling to see if I could get a good simple explanation to link, and although I didn't see any right away, I did find this book, which I am sure you can no longer remain without.

many Evangelicals are trying to push through legislation to put the Ten Commandments into schools and courts -- bardic

Of course you're right again. To be honest, I think they want the Ten Commandments because they make a relatively simple, and very definite, statement, and they're willing to sacrifice some theology to get there. If something similar were in the NT, I think they'd go with that . . . but the closest definitive summing-up in the NT is probably "Love your neighbor as yourself," which obviously doesn't express what they want. Also, with the Ten Commandments, they can claim Jewish support as well.

So Abraham and David were sinners?

Bardic, am I missing something in your comment? It's a basic concept that everyone is a sinner ("all have sinned") -- and are redeemed not because of personal worthiness, but through God's grace. You bet Abraham and David were sinners, and so is every other Christian, including ministers and priests and saintly old ladies of all kinds. I feel like I must have missed something you're saying...?

You mean rules like the 10 commandments? -- stirfry

Did you miss the part where I said Jesus "promot[ed] six commandments rather than ten"? Check out Matthew 19:17-19 and Mark 10:17-19.
posted by booksandlibretti at 10:42 PM on November 2, 2006

ericb writes "How exactly does one learn how accurate one's gaydar is?

"Take the Gaydar Test!"

You staggeringly accurate at scored 95%

You personally got 19 of the 20 people correct and were better at recognizing girls than guys. Overall, you guessed better than 99% of all test takers.

(I shrug humbly.)
posted by orthogonality at 10:47 PM on November 2, 2006

Pollomacho: There were those in Jesus's time, according to the accounts in the gospels anyway or if you look at the Talmud, that were nit-picking those scrolls so inferring that literal translation four-square fundamentalists is something new and only extant since the 12th century just doesn't hold water.

Those scribes didn't sit at home and pick up "the Bible" and read it from cover to cover waiting for the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what it meant. They were part of a living community that read those texts, and they were initiated into a complex tradition of arguing about those texts, and lining up various authorities to resolve apparent conflicts between them. Every Christian tradition has always had a crucial place for that kind of "nit-picking", and it is something completely different from what fundamentalists do. They rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to the individual person and reveal the meaning of the text, because each fundamentalist is his own pope. You seem to be confusing the act of taking great care with the literal meaning of texts, which is common to all Christians, with fundamentalist proof-texting, which is not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:50 PM on November 2, 2006

Even when someone is so depraved as to deny the existence of God, the natural law remains at the core of that person's being, commanding him or her to do what is right.

*sniff sniff* I've never been so proud of my depravity. Woo!
posted by smallerdemon at 10:51 PM on November 2, 2006

later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

Man, you're going to feel dumb when God replaces Christianity with something better. ;)
posted by boaz at 10:51 PM on November 2, 2006

"Take the Gaydar Test!"

60%.. Damn. I suck.





Not in THAT way, obviously....
posted by c13 at 10:52 PM on November 2, 2006

He's admitted it now. Better have that gaydar adjusted.
posted by 2sheets at 10:57 PM on November 2, 2006

I wonder what it would be like to have your husband turn out to be sexually attracted to men. Some women I've talked to about it have said it would be devastating to them. Others thought they would be able to cope with it. Not being a woman, it's hard for me to envision. I wouldn't be that upset if my wife were attracted to women, so long as she also wanted to be with me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:01 PM on November 2, 2006

God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.


Interesting. God is fallible. That's rather un-Thomist of you to admit.
posted by bardic at 11:03 PM on November 2, 2006

My ex-girlfriend's ex-boyfriend dumped her for a guy. She said she was pretty upset for a while, but she was fine at the end.
posted by c13 at 11:05 PM on November 2, 2006

of course he did it--it amazes me that people don't want to believe the truth.

...Pastor Haggard and so many like him just cannot accept their own humanity. I understand the struggle they face and I sympathize...but at the same time I abhor the choices they make because those choices have impact that is often detrimental to those who have found the capacity to embrace their humanity. In fact, people like Haggard often victimize those who share their same identity because they are fighting an internal battle to deny that very identity. Frankly, the last thing they should be doing is leading others or presenting a persona that suggests they have access to more "truth" than those in their midst. They have simply taken their own denial to an extreme that exceeds that of those they have been able to manipulate and they then all join together in fostering their shared denial by vilifying others.

Look, the bottom line is that we all share one thing...our humanity. When any of us seek to deny the humanity of others, we set in motion the destruction of our shared humanity. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:06 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

He's admitted it now.

He's admitted to something now, anyway, but we're not sure what. It's a tough call. If he admits the sex but denies the drugs, the sobbing trip to rehab is right out as a cover. Choices, choices.
posted by mediareport at 11:08 PM on November 2, 2006

Struggling to reconcile two conflicting emotions:

1) If you were gay, that'd be okay

2) That's.... schadenfreude!
posted by greycap at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong."

Well, you've pretty well argued Scripture into a corner in the course of your comments here. It's hard to buy it as an authority on anything at this point. Tradition is the "traditional" bad reason for doing something. I will mention slavery only obliquely.

Let's hear from reason itself! Careful though: reason can be a little more slippery than you've been led to believe. I'll give you two axioms from which to start; argue against them if you care to: pain is bad, pleasure is good.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:11 PM on November 2, 2006

Gaydar, schmaydar! This guy was like the poster child for obviousness.

Intense interest in the private lives of complete strangers is pretty much always prurient, no matter what your cover story.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:12 PM on November 2, 2006

This struck me: ... "This is really routine when any sort of situation like this arises, so we're prepared," ...

routine? how often does this sort of situation happen?
posted by amberglow at 11:13 PM on November 2, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he 'didn't have a problem with it,' but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats."

This claim seems to deny God's omnipotence. Which is fine, if that's the kind of God you've got.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006

Ooops, no wait, do what I say and not who I do. Um, evil get behind me (and give it to me hard).

Uh, at least Jeff Gannon's back in the news again?
posted by fenriq at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006

I call bullshit on your gaydar. And your God.

Goddar?
posted by homunculus at 11:14 PM on November 2, 2006

Ok, so after amberglow's link, denying the meth seems to be out. Looks like we've got a "I underestimated the power of Satan's drugs and he led me down a dark path to fornication with men" situation here. Yeah, I think that's the way he'll go.

Sobbing trip to rehab in 3...2...
posted by mediareport at 11:21 PM on November 2, 2006

This is amazing. How much worse can it get for the republicans before next Tuesday, anyway? They're imploding.
posted by mullingitover at 11:25 PM on November 2, 2006

Don't worry, the Dems will find a way to fail to take advantage of this opportunity, too.
posted by mediareport at 11:28 PM on November 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

I wonder what effect this will have, given that he was such a big political player with the GOP?
Many evangelicals "feel used and taken for granted by the Republican Party,"...
posted by amberglow at 11:29 PM on November 2, 2006

Clips of the voice mails.
posted by bardic at 12:02 AM on November 3, 2006

(FYI, you have to sit through a commercial.)
posted by bardic at 12:02 AM on November 3, 2006

konolia, how's your gaydar vis a vis your husband? Just asking.

(Mine own personal gaydar, scientifically tested via the intertubes just a few moments ago, is at 70%, better at men than women. This is awesome--all those attractive women I think are straight are actually lesbians, which fuels my adolescent fantasies--and if I ever want to become a right-wing law-maker, I'll be able to determine which pages to hire with confidence.)
posted by maxwelton at 12:12 AM on November 3, 2006

Accusing people of being pedophiles is not a very Christian thing to do.

Huh? It is a VERY Christian thing to do. It seems these people are always laying blame or focusing on what other people do. They can't get thier confusing contradictory five thousand year old myths to align with reality... so it's everybody elses fault who doesn't believe?

I have had it with the faithful idiot deists of this world. At worst they are dangerous lunatics bent on world domination. At best they are hypocrites that have no idea, certainly no consensus, of what their sky gods even want. They make shit up as they go along.

"Well, uh, what god or Jesus really MEANT was..."

You have no idea what your God meant. Or what Jesus did, or did not, say. Or if any of them really exist at all.

We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.
posted by tkchrist at 12:17 AM on November 3, 2006

"We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.

I think he'd be okay with it.
posted by Humanzee at 12:23 AM on November 3, 2006

We might as well speculate on what Gandalf would do if Frodo came out gay.

Dude, did you even see the Lord of the Rings? Gay, dude, totally.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:26 AM on November 3, 2006

I wonder what effect this will have, given that he was such a big political player with the GOP?

Zero. No. Less than zero. Negative eleven.

Christ. If these people are not moved by an unjust war, where it may be that hundreds of thousands of innocents have been murdered by thier downs syndrome president, you think they are going to open their eyes long enough to see one of their beloved Sky God Talkers butt-fucking with a methpipe dangling out of the crack of his ass? Hell no.

They already believe in too many lies at this point. Sky god. WMD. Homoseshuls = Satan.

They. Don't. Care.
posted by tkchrist at 12:29 AM on November 3, 2006

I think, tkchrist, that this is precicely the kind of bullshit "issue" that they do care about.

A few thousand dead "ragheads" who cares. The preacher's a queer, fetch my pitchfork, ma!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:39 AM on November 3, 2006

I think, tkchrist, that this is precicely the kind of bullshit "issue" that they do care about.

Sadly. You may be right. But it won't effect the polls on Tuesday.
posted by tkchrist at 12:52 AM on November 3, 2006

I love pan-fried rabbit with cream gravy.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:00 AM on November 3, 2006

peepingThomist: [Fundamentalists] rely on the Holy Spirit to speak to the individual person and reveal the meaning of the text, because each fundamentalist is his own pope.

Quite right too. Where is the Pope in the Gospels? If the Gospels are the word of God made flesh, and He cares for us, then through prayer and thought and reading the teachings of his Son we will be able to make the right moral choices. Otherwise we have to rely on Popes or Kings or posters on websites to tell us what God means when he writes "don't eat shrimp", and these self-appointed prophets are only men and prey to mistake and malice.

Witness the way that the Gospels (the actual teachings and works of Jesus) are corrupted or interpreted by Paul: Paul sought to make the new religon of a monotheistic, poor, anti-establishment cult leader compatible with a Western, civilised, rich Empire. In doing so he claimed the right to pontificate on issues of importance to these decadent Roman lands for his rag-wearing crucified prophet. He did well, brilliantly, but to claim his words are anything other than that of a successful marketing man does not place the Gospels in their correct position of primacy.

But wait, can we go further and say that Paul was not just repackaging but actively subverting the true Christian message? Yes, say many Christians, such as the Free Presbyterian Church, and many followers of Islam. Paul, author of anti-gay passages in Corinthians and elsewhere, is believed by many to be not only misguided but an active agent of the Antichrist.

It is clear that Paul's teachings on homosexuality (the source of most New Testament homophobic references, such as Corinthians) need not be taken as the word of God. We can compare what we have in the real Gospels about homosexuality versus what we have in the real Gospels about poverty. Would Jesus care about the sex of each husband in Elton John's marriage or the contribution of their First-World lifestyle to the environmental destruction of His creation? I know what I think a loving God would say.

---

I'm an atheist, but I'm a fundamentalist-Protestant atheist. The point is that while discussing religon is fun it won't ever get anywhere - no resolution, no progress. Religon is culturally-determined and there is no external check (c.f. experimentation in science) so we can go on forever arguing Scripture. Only rhetoric in the context of your culture and the exercise of power will change religious thought and teachings. The evangelicals are rich, well-organised, and persuasive: they will determine what the Bible and God says and said in the future.

I'm going to try out my "Catholicism is polytheistic" argument soon, see how that works out. All those saints? Virgin Mary? It's like Hinduism, I tell you! Wheeee!
posted by alasdair at 1:17 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

So in addition to the original 'sins' I guess he has to add yesterday's false denials to the list. This guy would have benefited by watching a few episodes of The Wire. You don't call somebody up and ask for "the stuff." The only better soundbite might have been if he had asked Jones to bring his friend Tina over. My spin prediction echoes mediareport's. As far as we know he wasn't stupid enough to ask for sex over the phone, as those were clearly re-up calls. For the evangelical crowd at large they will attempt to turn this into a 'the evil of meth' story and the truly hardcore there are already well conditioned to accept it as a "Control" plot by the demons in Colorado Springs.

As the original post was deleted, I still curious about Dobson's lightning-fast press release decrying media coverage. Can anybody comment on the true sentiment between Dobson and Haggard? The Harper's piece jabs in a bit about Haggard, not Dobson, being invited to the White House for the bill signing.
posted by well_balanced at 1:29 AM on November 3, 2006

You know, anti-gay Evangelical preachers would be a lot more convincing if they could just stay away from the dick.

As for the comments about how this effects the Republican faithful, I'll throw in my $0.02 USD and go with the "not at all" crowd.

First off, he's not running for office. Just because he chats with the president a lot means nothing.

Secondly, we're talking about people that already ignore reality: they think Iraq is going swimmingly, the economy is just grrr-eat, and that "America über Alles" is a workable foreign policy. I don't think one of those bunker-busting nuclear bombs the DoE is developing could break through the protective shell of delusion "the Party faithful" have wrapped themselves in.

Lastly, there are always the DEMONcrats to blame for this as a last resort. Undoubtedly Pastor Ted was tempted into sin. Satan has that power, you know, and the DEMONcrats are the party of Satan. Or some such bullshit.
posted by moonbiter at 1:55 AM on November 3, 2006

he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations."

Golden calf worshipping heathen!

The cloud over him may be The Man Himself.

After 40 days and 40 nights Haggard may emerge with some new commandments. Ponder on that.
posted by Tarn at 2:22 AM on November 3, 2006

It bears repeating 2sheet link

The guy admitted some escorting alllegations. Yes Brittany, you're a fag.

Nothing wrong with that. Expecially when you consider IT WAS THE DEVIL ! HE DIDN'T SIN it was the goddamn devil ! Yeah he also stole the cookies from the jar !

Born Again Christian in 3..2..1..
posted by elpapacito at 3:33 AM on November 3, 2006

Ops I forgot

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/carolanderic/tehghey.jpg

NSFW
posted by elpapacito at 3:40 AM on November 3, 2006

Yeah. 2,000 years of Christian theology has been reduced to making Jesus your get-out-of-jail/homesexual liason/tax fraud/hypocrisy card.

Like I said up-thread, you mix your spiritual beliefs into your politics, and you're bound to get burned, eventually.
posted by bardic at 3:41 AM on November 3, 2006

Crap.


Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

Oh, and sadly, my grandma might just be in hell-but only the Saviour knows that for sure. Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven. Obviously it hurts my heart a lot (Most of my extended family are not born again.)
posted by konolia at 4:24 AM on November 3, 2006

some of us couldn't be happy knowing that others were in eternal torment

and you're not telling us the truth, konolia, you're telling us the truth as you know and understand it

big difference there ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:34 AM on November 3, 2006

Haggard, 50, initially denied the allegations, telling 9News Wednesday night that "I've never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife."

"I'm steady with my wife?" Who the hell talks like that?

In my mind, "steady" conjures up images of a middle school romance: holding hands, smooching chastely, and maybe--maybe--cuddling through several layers of clothing. . .

Oh.
posted by EarBucket at 4:58 AM on November 3, 2006

I just listened the voice mail message linked above. Definitely sounds like him.

I like his pseudonym, too. Art. Am Really Ted.
posted by emelenjr at 5:01 AM on November 3, 2006

I take great pleasure in watching the downfall of another hypocrite fundie bastard. He could have been caught doing anythng at all illegal and/or "immoral" by his church's standards, but he actually appears to have been caught a) breaking the law; b) cheating on his wife; and c) doing the one thing his church declares is the root of all evil.

How can you not laugh at such hubris and hypocrisy? What is the proper reaction? Oh, let's wait for the evidence, because his resigning is just a "process" that got triggered? Bull. Shit. These guys are masters of realpolitik, and absolute political cynics. If there was no fire to go with the smoke, there is NO WAY he would have stepped down both from the NAE and his church position within one day like this, 5 days before a major national election in which this is bound to hurt his friends in the GOP, on hom he relies for succor (ha ha).

So here's a great big hardy hardy har and a round for all my friends. Let's drink to this man's fall from grace he never earned.

F**k you, Haggard. And all your bigoted, close-minded, "Christian" followers who believe your gospel of hate. Hoist, indeed, by your own petard, and you probably get off on it.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:03 AM on November 3, 2006

Hey Konolia, it's not the "truth" unless you can prove it.

So go ahead. Prove your "hell" exists and all the sodomites are going there.

You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:08 AM on November 3, 2006

Oh, and we've already reaped the political benefit for the dems: the utter bullshit "Kerry insulted the troops" story is gone, gone, gone. And the GOP loses control of at least two more news cycles with 4 days left. Yeehaw.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:10 AM on November 3, 2006

"Hell" is other people and I guess I'm there already.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:10 AM on November 3, 2006

First Peter 4:17-18

For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God;and if it begins with us,what will the outcome be for those that do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?
posted by konolia at 5:14 AM on November 3, 2006

Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

You have no fucking clue what the truth is. You can't even articulate you idiotic ideas of what it might be and regress to statements like "Sin is what God says it is. Period." in response to even the slightest criticism. You can't put two sentences together without some sort of inconsistency or contradiction. Only lord knows whether you grandma is in hell, but YOU think the other family member made it to heaven!
posted by c13 at 5:22 AM on November 3, 2006

Anyone see this?

Late Thursday, The Associated Press reported that the acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted some of the accusations were true, but Parsley didn't elaborate.

Yeah, just a slander. Sure.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:24 AM on November 3, 2006

Apocryphal: I read this in my own notebook.

For judgment is in the eye of the beholder; which of us does not judge? All of us have masked the face of God with our masks, put our stained words in His mouth. The Righteous is he who rejects the falsity of perception; he who walks in Truth is not without but within, not in a book, but dwells in the spring of the heart.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:37 AM on November 3, 2006

Time to whip out my old favourites:

Matthew 7:1-5 --
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

And, always:

Matthew 5:5 --
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 5:37 AM on November 3, 2006

^ see? just as valid as any nonsense with a classy title like "Letter to blahdeblah"
posted by exlotuseater at 5:38 AM on November 3, 2006

First Peter

Really?
posted by SteveInMaine at 5:40 AM on November 3, 2006

This preacher is a f*cking scumbag.

Following in the footsteps of MANY other people just like him who can't stand the fact that they were BORN GAY, and take to gay bashing to make themselves feel better.
posted by stevejensen at 5:47 AM on November 3, 2006

But, you know, sometimes comeuppance is deserved.

"Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.

Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed
than to share plunder with the proud."


As for konolia, she knows all too well that it's debatable whether or not a group that eats shellfish and allows women to talk in church can non-hypocritically condemn homosexuality a sin. As for hell, I think that Jesus guy said long ago that the "true believers" are pretty much going to be nastily surprised on Judgement Day:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Worshipping Supply Side Jesus has allowed the evangelical right to embrace the worst aspects of capitalism and life in middle-class comfort, but I don't think it'll be Supply Side Jesus sitting in that judgement chair.

To put it another way, I'll happily put up with evangelical anti-gay bigotry as soon as they start taking the majority of the Bible they claim guides thier lives seriously. Feed the poor. Care for the sick. Welcome the immigrant. Judge not lest you be judged. Turn the other cheek, even in international politics. Act like Jesus, maybe even just a little, maybe just 1%, and maybe then what you say about what God does and does approve of will carry some weight with me.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:47 AM on November 3, 2006 [14 favorites]

Ross Parsley Interview.
posted by ibmcginty at 5:54 AM on November 3, 2006

I know I'm arriving late to the party, and I don't have the patience to go through the last thousand comments to see if anyone else has posted this -- but MSNBC has just reported that the good preacher has ADMITTED to certain, ahem, INDISCRETIONS. Now put that in your man-pipe and smoke it.
posted by Toecutter at 5:54 AM on November 3, 2006

Oh God, Supply Side Jesus ! Thanks eustace !
posted by elpapacito at 5:57 AM on November 3, 2006

I don't see it on the site, Toecutter- link to prove it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:58 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell

Not that one.

or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

That one gets closer, yeah.

Of course, the real problem isn't that evangelicals offer arguments to homosexuals. If it were just a matter of people bothering gays about how they're going to hell, that wouldn't be such a big deal.

The problem is that evangelicals try to use the power of the state to forbid homosexuals from making legal contracts with each other, and to forbid homosexuals from making legally binding medical decisions for their immediate families, and to keep homosexuals in poverty following the death of immediate family members by denying them inheritance rights. The problem is that evangelicals don't just not visit the sick and not feed the hungry in this context, they use the power of the state to forcibly prevent family members from ministering to the sick and feeding the hungry.

Which is more hateful? That's a tough one, cookie.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:08 AM on November 3, 2006

Huh. I was sure this was going to be nothing. First Foley, then this...
posted by smackfu at 3:52 PM PST

Keep looking down, eventually there will be flowers thrown at your feet.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:09 AM on November 3, 2006

A fair call out, Pink. No link sorry -- was during a news break on MSNBC's Imus radio show broadcast. But now (and again, no link, but what can I say) MSNBC has broadcast a snippet of the voice mail recording along with a speech analyst's opinion that it belongs to Haggard. This guy is toast.
posted by Toecutter at 6:10 AM on November 3, 2006

Well ... this is a cluster, if I ever saw one.

The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.
posted by Alt F4 at 6:19 AM on November 3, 2006

Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

Konolia, I think the part where you accused a lot of innocent, law-abiding people of being pedophiles was very hateful.

May your God offer mercy on your soul for such libelous, baseless comments.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:25 AM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?

Don't flatter yourself. The only reason you're an "enemy" is because you want me to live as a second-class citizen in the country of my birth, and are working to make that happen. I don't give a fuck what you believe, konolia, even if I think the brand of Christianity you've chosen for yourself demonstrates a startlingly pinched and dessicated heart. But when you use your beliefs to deny me the basic civil rights you enjoy, then you're a fucking jerk who deserves no respect whatsoever.

Find another issue to tell the truth about, dear. You're done on this one, gaydar and all.
posted by mediareport at 6:26 AM on November 3, 2006 [5 favorites]

Oh yeah, this was on Focus on the Family Radio last night. They kinda implied it wasn't true.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:26 AM on November 3, 2006

The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.

Oh, please. The children's table is in the kitchen, if you can't handle a group of adults talking cynically about sex, religion, lying and hypocrisy in U.S. politics.
posted by mediareport at 6:27 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

Email sent to the New Life Church mailing list by the new pastor, Ross Parsley: here. Contains a press release and this line:
"Since that time, the board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.

I'm betting he'll admit to the drug use, but not the adult penis funtime.
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 6:30 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia writes "Am I an enemy because I tell you the truth?"

We take offense to your words because they are hateful. And the creepiest thing is that I am willing to accept that you are reproducing them here without malice, and even thinking that you're doing us good.

Even the Inquisitor back in the old days could feel good about torturing a man to death if the man confessed before dying. You see, if he truly confessed, his soul would go to heaven when he passed on (generally minutes after the confession). The Inquisitor never needed to reflect on the horrible, horrible tortures he was submitting his victim to, because it was all for the greater good, for the greater glory of God.

And so it is with you. You are so used to the hate that you do not see it as hate. You even see it as a good thing -- spreading the hate will lead to more souls being saved. I think you might want to have a look at Matthew 7:3 and ponder its meaning. And think of how your hateful attitude towards gays reflects on your understanding of John 15:12.
posted by clevershark at 6:33 AM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites]

The schadenfreude in here is pathetic.

People like you started this Culture War. So don't whine when we bayonette the battlefield wounded.
posted by Toecutter at 6:33 AM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites]

I think you might want to have a look at Matthew 7:3 and ponder its meaning.

*cough cough*
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:42 AM on November 3, 2006

So don't whine when we bayonette the battlefield wounded

Who's bayonetting? We're simply watching with satisfaction when yet another anti-gay crusader gets revealed as a closet case who projects his own lack of courage and spirit onto every other gay person. Most of us know by now that's how many of the worst anti-gay crusaders get created, but it's still useful for the few who don't when that truth is revealed yet again.

We're not bayonetting, we're using the stupidity of one culture warrior to help others out of the war.
posted by mediareport at 6:49 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Konolia: I'll bet you're not at all a bad person, and you probably do mean well. But as usual here on the blue, you come across as a bigot, a simpleton, and a coward. You make astoundingly ignorant proclamations (e.g. gay = pedophile) and then you disappear... Or else you call up your facile, deux ex machina ("Because God says so") to bail you out and sum it all up for us sinners (--a wide lot, including even your grandma); a move that makes it embarrassingly clear how in over your head you are.
posted by applemeat at 6:54 AM on November 3, 2006

bardic: If Michael Moore got caught being pegged by Ann Coulter, it would be mefi's job, nay, it's duty to comment upon it.

Thanks, bardic!!! That one made my day. Ya know, I am not sure who should be more shamed in that arrangement. Or more proud. Dang man, what is it with Coulter? She has that really really evil bad girl appeal somehow. It ain't right. It bothers me.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:05 AM on November 3, 2006

Bovine Love writes "Dang man, what is it with Coulter? She has that really really evil bad girl appeal somehow. It ain't right. It bothers me."

She makes voter fraud seem like teh sexay!
posted by clevershark at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2006

"If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve. Being born again doesn't erase your past, and it sure as hell doen't make you holier than me.

It makes you weak, and pathetic."

That's a really, really snotty-sounding comment pastabagel.

Reminds me of the pose/prose of the appalling James "Million Little Pieces" Frey.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:13 AM on November 3, 2006

What mediareport said - "yet another anti-gay cursader".

Think about this for a second - the problem here is not that these guys are being gay and hypocritical (okay, that is a problem, but not the BIG problem), the problem is that they are in the public eye, they know people are watching and they do it anyway.

How colossally arrogant is it to think that you can be a congressman and hit on underage pages and not think you are going to get busted? How arrogant is it to be the head of the organization that has made ant-gay preaching a foundational principle and then go hire a male prostitute on a monthly basiss and not expect to get caught?

It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations - soft, comfy, middle-class weakness. Unable to sacrifice, unable to deny themselves even when it's in their best interest, unable to resist their appetites.

That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc.

We can control our tempers and our feelings, and we don't need fairy stories of gods and demons and prophets and wizards and unicorns and whatever the hell else is in the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Urantia book or Battlefield Earth. We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion.

That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better. That's the NT for you. Not rules about who can touch a penis or under what conditions women are allow3ed to have sex. If you think the Bible is a guide to daily living, I'm sorry, you are in all scientific sense of the word, a moron. Your IQ is low. You missed the point.

The point of the Iliad is the danger of hubris, it's pride goeth before the fall. It's not about sneaky greeks or cool battles between gods and mortals. Frankenstein is not about a mad scientists, it's about how man can be a monster when faced with fear. Learn how to read, and then read between the lines. Even when the Bible mentions sex literally it's not really about sex.

The new testament is in absolutely no way about sex. Not straight sex, not gay sex, not any kind of sex. If you are so obssesed with sex that you turn a great work of moral philosophy into fuck manual, then you don't need a priest, you need a therapist. You need a university faculty analyzing you around the clock.

In summary, new testament not about sex.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:16 AM on November 3, 2006 [51 favorites]

Pastabagel for mayor.
posted by glenwood at 7:19 AM on November 3, 2006

If you are so obssesed with sex that you turn a great work of moral philosophy into fuck manual, then you don't need a priest, you need a therapist.

BRAVO.
posted by applemeat at 7:19 AM on November 3, 2006

you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 7:25 AM on November 3, 2006

Most of us here believe that when a politician or preacher, with moral and political power respectively (although the line between the two has become dangerously blurred recently), and then gets caught having man-fun in between trying to make it illegal/immoral to have man-fun, they get what they deserve when they are caught in flagrante delictico with another same-sex human.

If Ted were my plumber or my professor or my doctor I wouldn't give a shit.

If I voted for a congressperson because she was against abortion and than she had an abortion, would I feel the same way? Probably.

And sorry for feeling schadenfreude. I'm only human, and I'm not trying to get elected on an anti-schadefreude platform.
posted by kozad at 7:27 AM on November 3, 2006

so who whacked the first thread - and did they apologize to the whackee? that was f'd. as is the whole evangelical movement. sick shit - ministers riding high in their tax free SUVs. this couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. think haggered is out purchasing some bubble wrap?
posted by specialk420 at 7:28 AM on November 3, 2006

To put it another way, I'll happily put up with evangelical anti-gay bigotry as soon as they start taking the majority of the Bible they claim guides thier lives seriously. Feed the poor. Care for the sick. Welcome the immigrant. Judge not lest you be judged. Turn the other cheek, even in international politics. Act like Jesus, maybe even just a little, maybe just 1%, and maybe then what you say about what God does and does approve of will carry some weight with me.

As a Christian, so would I.

And, you know? There's a shift coming, something I was trying to say waaaaaaaay up the thread. The current Father, Son, and Grand Old Party flavor of Christianity is starting to collapse. Those in the church who have tied their fortunes to the Republican bandwagon are trying desperately to cut the rope before the party goes off the cliff.

New flavors of Christianity are coming out, with new leaders and new emphases.

The mainline church is shrinking, thanks to a graying membership and a mealymouthed evangelism that's failed to attract new blood (save some pockets within the Presbyterian and Lutheran churches).

Non-denominational "megachurches" are proving themselves to be unsustainable, because too often they form around one person, like a Ted Haggard, and turn into personality cults. Then, when something happens to the personality -- death, heresy, teh gay sex while high on meth -- members abandon the expensive buildings and trappings in droves, leaving unpaid bills and unused shopping mall type churches.

There's a change coming, though. And like I said up thread, two strains are coming into focus -- the emerging church and the neo-reformed movement. Both have greater focus on the poor and less emphasis on politics to fix perceived problems. Both are evangelical. Both are composed of Gen X pastors and Gen Y members. And both are about to start pushing the Dobsons and Falwells and Spongs into the background.

And I've seen it. I've seen these changes in a number of places. And it's not going to be what eustacescrubb wants exactly, but it's a start. At least it relies on Biblical living. At least it returns one of the central concerns of the Bible -- the poor -- to being a concern instead of being illegal immigrant welfare mothers.

And it won't be the castrated faith that so many on this thread want.

But things are changing. Everyone just doesn't know it yet. And in 5, 10, 15 years, people will be complaining about different parts of Christianity. And Fred Phelps, that guy who is as Christian as Richard Dawkins. Because evil shitheads like him never die.

Aside to koinolia: Yeah, you might want to rethink your strategy. Remember in Acts where Paul gets stoned by the angry mob? That's MetaFilter every thread, every day, regardless of topic. Unless you want a few hundred welts on that pretty little head of yours, I'd be backing away about 5 hours ago.
posted by dw at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2006

"Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation."

-- Jim Wallis, (liberal Evangelical preacher)

It's a bit disingenuous to tar an entire movement with the same brush--evangelical Christianity has more than one view in it.

(And you know? You can be Christian and homosexual. It's not either/or.)
posted by Upton O'Good at 7:32 AM on November 3, 2006

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM EST on November 3


Exactly. People who think that just because they quit their addiction they now have Christ in their heart and are holier than thou, and aren't inheriting anything in whatever afterlife there is.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:34 AM on November 3, 2006

I am shocked, alarmed, dismayed and outraged (in add'n to being severely late to this thread)! How dare a pastor -- a man of God, a spirtual leader to thousands -- be so human as to have sexual needs and respond to those needs? Would prefer to see him in a healthy, stable homo relnship to reading that he's paying for sex, though -- the needed intimacy's probably just not there.

Yeah, I've wondered about threads getting whacked. How dare the Powers that Be at MeFi be so human? Hmmm....
posted by pax digita at 7:35 AM on November 3, 2006

"That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc. We can control our tempers and our feelings, and we don't need fairy stories of gods and demons and prophets and wizards and unicorns and whatever the hell else is in the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Urantia book or Battlefield Earth. We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion...."

Pastabagel:

You sound as though you're about to implode with righteous fury lecturing about self-control and compassion!

Jeepers, listen to some nice Yo Yo Ma or something!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 7:38 AM on November 3, 2006

People like you started this Culture War.

Wha? What are "people like me"? I don't know Ted Haggard. I've never been to his church. I'm not Republican. My sister's a lesbian. My personal position is that the state should recognize same-sex unions. So it's pretty presumptuous to just lash out at me with a "people like you."

But here's the irony, and here's what I'm trying to say: This thread is full of people crying out that this guy shouldn't judge people for their actions (that is, his anti-homosexual position), while they judge him for his actions (that is, his homosexual position {as it were}). "No, no," you say. "We're judging him for his hypocrisy." Sure. Yeah. You are. I know that. But the point is that you're taking gleeful pleasure in this guy's downfall, while you condemn him for his own lack of grace (in the Christian, "forgiven" sense of the word) towards homosexuals.

It's remarkably hypocritical to be un-grace-ful while condemning someone else for his un-grace-ful-ness. That's all I'm saying.

On preview: That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.
That's spot-on.
posted by Alt F4 at 7:43 AM on November 3, 2006

someone sent me his confession.
posted by mathowie at 7:46 AM on November 3, 2006

But things are changing. Everyone just doesn't know it yet. And in 5, 10, 15 years, people will be complaining about different parts of Christianity. And Fred Phelps, that guy who is as Christian as Richard Dawkins. Because evil shitheads like him never die.

posted by dw at 10:30 AM EST on November 3


I'm sure you're right in characterizing the trend, but I don't see the new crop getting the same political clout as the old one, because preaching on poverty and sacrifice is not something the soft middle class wants to hear. They want to hear that they are good and someone else is bad without having to work to achieve that goodness. That's why the gay thing resonates so much.

"Hey, I'm straight, I'm already better than all these gay people and I didn't have to do anything. I guess I really am blessed!"

The evangelical movement spread so successfully because it was a very nice way to replace some very ugly undercurrents in american society - all the anti-catholic bigotry, the humiliation of the south and a crushed white pride, the humiliation of vietnam and the counterculture movement, the rapid economic success of immigrants, the the shifting of mainstream media to a more confrontational, pluralistic art form from a conformist, corporate echo chamber (though it is swinging back that way), all these things made middle class whites feel disenfranchised. Add to that all the drinking, etc.

The evangelical movement stepped in to the void and lifted their spirits. It had nothing to do with helping the poor, because by and large the membership doesn't care about the poor.

To them the poor are the welfare queens and the lazy looking for handouts, and the rich are the artsy educated elites that they don't understand and can't engage intellectually. Evangelicism is "what about me?" religion.

So it's great that some people want to take their religion back. Good for them, but if they expect to have congregations even a tenth as large as this guy's, they are in for a rude awakening.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

But the point is that you're taking gleeful pleasure in this guy's downfall, while you condemn him for his own lack of grace (in the Christian, "forgiven" sense of the word) towards homosexuals.

Come on, Alt F4, this isn't that hard.

This is a guy who is guilty not merely of the sin of lack of grace, but of USING HIS LEADERSHIP OF A 30-MILLION MEMBER ORGANIZATION TO STIGMATIZE GAY PEOPLE AND TO ENSHRINE THAT PREJUDICE INTO LAW.

Also, he talked to the president or his advisers every week.

If this were some guy in the next cubicle, then any schadenfreude would be bizarre. But it's not.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:47 AM on November 3, 2006

Now that I have that out of the way, which is more hateful-telling people that God has no problem with homosexual behavior therefore letting them wind up in hell, or telling them the truth in hope they repent and turn to God, to find eternal life?

This of course presupposes the existence of God. But even if you take that as given--what if he's cooler than you think, konolia? What if this actually isn't a mandate from heaven, but something Christians have picked up because it was a convenient "sin" to cluck their tongues over?

What you ask is nothing less than for gay people to sacrifice any chance at happiness in their natural lives on the off chance that their afterlife depends on it. Given that such a sacrifice is naturally unnecessary for you, yes, that's hateful.

Oh, and sadly, my grandma might just be in hell-but only the Saviour knows that for sure. Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven. Obviously it hurts my heart a lot (Most of my extended family are not born again.)

That's the eeriest thing about fundamentalists. Why do you want to spend eternity without your family? (I mean, it might sound tempting around Thanksgiving, but it would probably get old fast.) Eternal separation from your loved ones is eternal punishment. "It hurts" is a bit of an understatement, don't you think?
posted by Epenthesis at 7:49 AM on November 3, 2006

Also, it's worth watching the interview with Haggard's temporary replacement. Set gaydars on "suspension of disbelief."
posted by ibmcginty at 7:51 AM on November 3, 2006

I strongly disagree with you there, Alt F4. People here seem to me to be judging Haggard on his hypocrisy. When has a metafilter thread about another run-of-the-mill, Republican homophobe had this many posts?

Uh..Congratulations on the lesbian sister. (Does that innoculate you from homophobia?.. I'm not sure.)
posted by applemeat at 7:52 AM on November 3, 2006

Hey Konolia, it's not the "truth" unless you can prove it.
So go ahead. Prove your "hell" exists and all the sodomites are going there.
You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac

A disgrace to metafilter??? Because she believes differently than the majority of us?

I believe that konolia is a kind, well-meaning member of metafilter. She is not a troll. She is not a hypocrite. She is, of course, IMHO wrong on this subject but that does not make her the enemy. Save your self-righteous indignation for those who deserve it.

Let he who is not in denial about something cast the first stone.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:53 AM on November 3, 2006

That's a really, really snotty-sounding comment pastabagel.

You sound as though you're about to implode with righteous fury lecturing about self-control and compassion!

How about reading his posts instead of reading into them?
posted by MegoSteve at 7:53 AM on November 3, 2006

Sin is what God says it is. Period.

Konolia, I love ya, but sometimes you trouble me. The Bible is an often wise and beautiful book that says a lot of things. I'm not her to disrespect your faith, but as your friend I urge you to read this book.

There are people who are simply homophobes, but who use religion as pseudo-justification. Then there are generally decent people who tolerate homophobia because some interpretations of their faith tell them to. I'd wager you're in the latter camp. And the book I linked shows that there's other ways of interpreting a lot of things.
posted by jonmc at 7:55 AM on November 3, 2006

ibmcginty - that's fair.
posted by Alt F4 at 7:57 AM on November 3, 2006

I also think it's very sad that some people here choose to take out their legitamite gripes with other Christians on konolia. Dirty pool and scapegoating. I disagree with her on a lot and I'm sure she disapproves of many things I do, but she's never been anything other than a lady about it.
posted by jonmc at 7:57 AM on November 3, 2006

and FWIW, konolia, I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 AM on November 3, 2006

me: "We're judging him for his hypocrisy." ... I know that.

applemeat: I strongly disagree with you there, Alt F4. People here seem to me to be judging Haggard on his hypocrisy.

Got it.
posted by Alt F4 at 8:02 AM on November 3, 2006

ibmcginty, thanks for the link to the interview with the acting senior pastor.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:03 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's remarkably hypocritical to be un-grace-ful while condemning someone else for his un-grace-ful-ness.

What are you talking about? We're condemning him for specific anti-gay remarks he made while manwhoring with a rentboy over the past three years. It has nothing to do with "his un-grace-ful-ness," whatever the fuck that is, despite your apparent need to equate us with him.
posted by mediareport at 8:04 AM on November 3, 2006

Look Alt F4 -- I'm glad you're not a dick. But you are the one throwing out words like "pathetic," "presumptuous," and "hypocritical," which, were I to apply the same exquisitely calibrated civility meter you have used on us, would certainly qualify as ungraceful.

This isn't difficult. Someone who has contributed to the growing darkness in this country has been exposed as a fraud. And some of us are happy about it.
posted by Toecutter at 8:07 AM on November 3, 2006

this guy, from everything I know, has never been an asshole.
posted by koeselitz at 5:20 PM PST on November 2

Crusading to ensure that homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals is an asshole move. Doing that while simultaneously paying for homosexual sex makes you a mega-asshole.

I'd wager that you don't know too many evangelicals, and that you only know them from what you see on TV and the Internet. Let me be the first to tell you, you usually have to talk to people before you can understand their culture.
posted by koeselitz at 5:31 PM PST on November 2

I used to work with a progressive evangelical Christian. He was nice and kind and a serious leftist. Then he ripped me off and may have committed fraud in his departure.

Now I work with a hard-right evangelical Christian. He is brusque and rude, and gets mad at people for daring to speak Spanish. He will probably rip me off, judging by what I've seen so far.

Down the street from me is an evangelical megachurch. They wouldn't hire me, but they asked for my help for their Fall Festival, and wanted my support so they could get a height exemption on their new building.

Pray tell: at what point do I stop turning the other cheek and rightfully conclude that the vast majority of evangelicals are dishonest and self-serving?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:09 AM on November 3, 2006

Jonmc, Konolia may indeed be a lady, and yes, she's much more gentle than Fred Phelps and his ilk, but why coddle anyone just because they could be worse? Why should decent manners insulate anyone from being called out on their stark ignorance?
posted by applemeat at 8:09 AM on November 3, 2006

Thanks, Alt F4, and thanks for being open to being persuaded rather than put off by my tone.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:10 AM on November 3, 2006

As in the Foley case (et al), I wonder if others will start coming forward who will claim assignations involving sexual and/or drug use with "Art" (BTW -- Arthur is Haggard's middle name).
posted by ericb at 8:13 AM on November 3, 2006

An apology from Konolia would be appropriate, jonmc. But I really don't expect one. It makes it so much easier to hate homosexuals when you can illogically connect them to vile behaviors like child molestation.

Every physical manifestation of love between same sex individuals is also manifested between opposite sex individuals. So it's kind of hard to focus on things like oral sex or anal sex. But pedophilia? Now there's something they can latch onto!
posted by NationalKato at 8:13 AM on November 3, 2006

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM EST on November 3


Also, I wasn't suggeting that people who are addicted are weak. The issue is how you get through it. Addiciton is a test. I hope that was clear. People who are addicted deserve compassion and help - they shouldn't have to deal with people trying to convert them to a religion just to get that help.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:15 AM on November 3, 2006

Why should decent manners insulate anyone from being called out on their stark ignorance?

It dosen't and if you read my comments, I do explicitly condemn what she said. But I also, from previous interactions, believe she's a decent, well-meaning person who just might listen to some of what we have to say if it's said the right way, so I try. (and sometimes, watching a good person believe bad things can be very ...disheartening and frustrating). And to give her her due, she's explicitly said that people who harass and discriminate against homosexuals are being wrong and sinful as well, so I think it's unfair to equate her with Phelps.

Plus, one thing I really dislike about the right is the gleeful way in which the pounce on their 'enemies' like a pack of jackals. I'd rather we weren't like them.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 AM on November 3, 2006

It makes it so much easier to hate homosexuals

she dosen't hate queerfolk, she's believes a lot of untrue things about them, and there is a difference. You could say the same about most of us with some group of people or another. So as that book says, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not lest ye be judged, etc.

When confronted with something we disagree strongly with, we can do one of two things, get all witchburny and lynchmobby (and I'll cop to having done that a time or two myself) oir we can try to engage. konolia keeps coming back to a place where she knows she's outnumbered and that many are explicitly hostiulr to her, so that tells me that maybe she wants to be engaged.
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on November 3, 2006

Ted Haggard is a hatemonger, and he deserves every tiny bit of scorn we can muster and more.

I love it when a children's sunday school lesson plays itself out on the national stage.

Pray tell: at what point do I stop turning the other cheek and rightfully conclude that the vast majority of evangelicals are dishonest and self-serving?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:09 AM CST on November 3

Today.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:21 AM on November 3, 2006

As an aside - check out this sign for the 'Yes on 43' anti-gay marriage amendment that Haggard supports.

Fox News link, click on the lower-right photo

Notice the bizarre 'subliminal' use of the word 'period' - in RED;as is the FEMALE figure.
posted by jettloe at 8:23 AM on November 3, 2006

I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.

It totally is. That's why people got angry here--don't insult us while trying to defend someone's trangressions--it makes you (and your faith) look really really bad.
posted by amberglow at 8:24 AM on November 3, 2006

Fastest growing "faith group" in America = Mormons

Fastest growing, on a percentage basis - Wicca

And be nice to konalia.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:25 AM on November 3, 2006

jonmc: I grok what you're saying, but damn man, she's been around a while. At what point do you stop responding to her "queers are going to hell! HELL! HEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLL!" with "oh, that's just konolia, being her little conservative self".

At some point, you have to hold someone responsible for the views they hold.

I too think she's basically a good person trapped in a hateful religion. But she's also a grown adult, well past the age of responsibility, and it is her own responsibility to look past the fairy tales and realize what her religion is wanting to impose upon the real world.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:28 AM on November 3, 2006

she dosen't hate queerfolk, she's believes a lot of untrue things about them

...and votes to keep them second-class citizens in a democracy. But it's not "hate," nosiree; it's "decent" and "well-meaning" to equate gay and lesbian citizens with pedophiles Give me a fucking break, jonmc. I've met plenty of superficially genteel fundamentalists but when push comes to shove, the mean-spiritedness underlying their professed beliefs comes shining through, and we've definitely seen that from konolia here, however much she likes to paint herself in showers of sunshine and rainbows.
posted by mediareport at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.


I disagree. I don't think she honestly thought people here might be gay, and she's probably heard pedophilia and homosexuality compared by some person or another, and is repeating it. Frankly, in a lot of same sex pedophile stories, the distinction is not really made clear that the crime is the sex with a minor, not homosexuality.

In the Catholic Church pedophile scandals, and in evangelical criticism of the Church, the sin they had to atone for was being gay, not being pedophiles.

So I'm willing to cut some slack.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006

Ynoxas, I'm merely saying we can hold her responsible without being jerks about it is all.
posted by jonmc at 8:30 AM on November 3, 2006

I don't think she honestly thought people here might be gay,

pastabagel, I know konolia from here and several other web forums, where she's heard me and others describe all kinds of stuff she probably disapproves of, including homosexuality. I think it's safe to say that she's aware that there's a substantial population of queerfolk around.
posted by jonmc at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2006

What, Pastabagel? konolia's been around a long time. She knows that plenty of mefites are gay, and she knows who many of them are, as well.
posted by gaspode at 8:32 AM on November 3, 2006

Pastabagel: as soon as the Mormons re-institute polygamy and remove the "special underwear" requirement, I'm right there. Because if I have 6 wives, I don't need nothing gettin' in my way, if you know what I'm sayin'.

"And then Jesus presented himself to the Costa Ricans, and then he was tired from revealing himself all over the world, so he took a little vacation in Jamaica, where he gave a half-assed story of his coming to the Rastafarians". Oh, those Mormons.

jonmc: understood.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:33 AM on November 3, 2006

At some point, you have to hold someone responsible for the views they hold.

I too think she's basically a good person trapped in a hateful religion. But she's also a grown adult, well past the age of responsibility, and it is her own responsibility to look past the fairy tales and realize what her religion is wanting to impose upon the real world.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:28 AM EST on November 3

That gets to the narcissism of it. I really don't think she realizes that gay issues actually affect real life human beings who have their own lives and feelings. She (not to single her out, the whole religion does) does not see everyone as separate individuals, she sees everything as an extension of her self and only as a projection on her beliefs and life.

That's the attack. Ask her to imagine that she or a loved one is gay, and then imagine that person's life. But saying that she insulted you is meaningless. She doesn't see you as a seperate individual that has feelings that can be insulted.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2006

"And then Jesus presented himself to the Costa Ricans, and then he was tired from revealing himself all over the world, so he took a little vacation in Jamaica, where he gave a half-assed story of his coming to the Rastafarians".

Religions of the world
posted by jonmc at 8:35 AM on November 3, 2006

pastabagel, I get what you're trying to say but you are making an awful lot of assumptions about konolia that I can tell you are untrue, which undermines your legitamite point.
posted by jonmc at 8:36 AM on November 3, 2006

I think it's safe to say that she's aware that there's a substantial population of queerfolk around.
posted by jonmc at 11:32 AM EST on November 3

Ok, I stand corrected.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:37 AM on November 3, 2006

konolia knows full well that we're gay -- but in previous discussions she hasn't compared us to criminals -- and if she did do that, we gave it to her then too. We don't hide, like Haggard or the many GOP closetcases--we speak and we respond and we have personal integrity.
posted by amberglow at 8:39 AM on November 3, 2006

I'm sure you're right in characterizing the trend, but I don't see the new crop getting the same political clout as the old one, because preaching on poverty and sacrifice is not something the soft middle class wants to hear. They want to hear that they are good and someone else is bad without having to work to achieve that goodness. That's why the gay thing resonates so much.

The problem is that it's not Biblical. Everyone is bad. Everyone sins. And faith in Christ doesn't make you better, only forgiven. (Yes, I know I'm ripping off a crap-ass bumper sticker, but hear me out.) And grace is a different animal from judgmentalness and schaudenfreude. It's actually really dangerous, because it says that crap like this is going to happen.

And I think, as the Dawkins-style "fundamentalist" atheism comes to the fore, you'll see the "soft middle class" abandon Christianity, just as they did in Germany and the UK during the 20th century. And that is actually a good thing, honestly. It means that the people who treat church as a Sunday morning Kiwanis Club meeting or a well-dressed version of a White Citizens Council will go find something else to dick around with.

The church as a political animal is an old phoenix. It's about to burn itself up, only to re-emerge in another generation again, only different. It happened before. Post-Scopes the evangelicals were silent until Billy Graham, the fundamentalists until the late 1960s.

The evangelical movement spread so successfully because it was a very nice way to replace some very ugly undercurrents in american society - all the anti-catholic bigotry, the humiliation of the south and a crushed white pride, the humiliation of vietnam and the counterculture movement, the rapid economic success of immigrants, the the shifting of mainstream media to a more confrontational, pluralistic art form from a conformist, corporate echo chamber (though it is swinging back that way), all these things made middle class whites feel disenfranchised.

You're conflating Republicans and Christians, especially when you start talking about Vietnam and the civil rights movement. The George Wallace "Segregation Forever" types started abandoning the Democratic party in the 1960s, and they eventually became the leadership of the Republican party. The evangelical movement really didn't start inserting themselves into politics until after Roe, and even then it took until the late 1970s before you actually started seeing the movement have influence.

And remember that the 1970s were the "Me Generation." Prop 13 came out of that era -- and all the tax crusading Reaganomics in its wake. Yes, the Christian Coalition joined in, but that wasn't really until the late 1980s.

And, honestly, would you consider Billy Graham to be on the same level as Falwell or Robertson? Graham is a classical Evangelical. Falwell is a neo-Fundamentalist. And I think you're conflating those two terms as well. They're not the same. Fundamentalists believe in Biblical inerrancy. Some Evangelicals believe in inerrancy, but most believe the Bible was "inspired" by God, that there are mistakes because humans wrote it, but as a whole it's a holy set of books. And there are other differences.

But the key thing to understand is that Fundamentalists start with the Five Fundamentals. Evangelicals as a whole don't ascribe to these because they don't reject higher biblical criticism.

For that matter, big-F Fundamentalism is a subset of Evangelical Christianity. It's a dominant strain right now, but it's not, in itself, Evangelical Christianity. (Little-f fundamentalism can be found in any belief system, of course.)

Evangelicism is "what about me?" religion.

No, American Christianity -- and American religion is. Look across at all the other religious movements that emerged post-1960s. It's all about self. It's all about what makes me look good, or better than someone else. The return of Gnosticism is less about "look how the church screwed up" and more about "look at the True Knowledge given me!" Ditto Celestine Prophecy. Or Da Vinci Code. And you see that in the New Age movement, or the Kabaalah. In fact, you even see it in this new Dawkinsite strain of atheism. We are perfect. It's everyone else who is delusional.

Americans are greedy and short-sighted, and despite being the most financially rich people in the history of humanity, they still want more. They still want what's coming to THEM.

But that's not what the Bible says. Any good evangelical or fundamentalist can tell you that. This American church, though, is soaking in the sins of avarice and greed and xenophobia. It has a hard time seeing and repenting this because it's so deeply enmeshed in this culture. And when it tries to force the culture into its mores, it usually discovers that its their sins that are preventing that from happening. So they force harder. Or get co-opted by politics. Or just be ham-handed about it. I mean, after all, they may be Christians, but they're Americans, too.

Did you know that the Rapture is a basically American theological concept? Think about it. In the rest of the world, Christians tend to be posttribulation or atribulation.

So it's great that some people want to take their religion back. Good for them, but if they expect to have congregations even a tenth as large as this guy's, they are in for a rude awakening.

You act like we don't know that. We do. Trust us, we do. Dobson and Falwell don't know it, but God will be calling them home soon enough. As for Haggard, well, there is sin, and there is forgiveness in God. Forgiveness from people, well, I'm sure he can hire the people who are trying to rehabilitate Tom Cruise's Q-score. He's probably got some money squirreled away somewhere.
posted by dw at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2006 [5 favorites]

Konolia keeps coming back to a place where she knows she's outnumbered and that many are explicitly hostiulr to her, so that tells me that maybe she wants to be engaged.

What part of "Sin is what God says it is. Period." suggests a willingness to be engaged, as opposed to a desire to proselytize?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:44 AM on November 3, 2006

armitage: that's one statement, taken out of context. Like I said, I've known her in the online sense, for roughly 5 years and she's never tried to save my soul.(or anyone else's in the various communities either, to my knowledge) and the Evangelicals are big on that, like the Catholics and Bingo. The very fact that she keeps showing tells me that on some level she wants to learn more. I sincerely hope she reads that book I linked.

Look, you've got beefs with the Christian Right. So do I. But I don't like making one user the scapegoat for all that. It seems mean, and too much like what the Fundies themselves do.
posted by jonmc at 8:50 AM on November 3, 2006

It seems mean, and too much like what the Fundies themselves do.

Calling homosexuality sinful, telling them that they'll burn in hell for it, decrying one sin (homosexuality) while engaging in another (gluttony), working to ensure homosexuals remain second-class citizens = totally super cool.

Saying that maybe all of the above maybe isn't totally super cool = mean.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:54 AM on November 3, 2006

Okay everyone, group hug. Come on. All the gays over here for a snuggle, I promise not to grope anyone. *snuggles all*
posted by Hildegarde at 8:58 AM on November 3, 2006

Calling homosexuality sinful, telling them that they'll burn in hell for it, decrying one sin (homosexuality) while engaging in another (gluttony), working to ensure homosexuals remain second-class citizens = totally super cool.

have fun playing with your strawman, optimus.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM on November 3, 2006

"Frankly I can only think of one deceased family member who I think made it to heaven."
Yeah, and I'm the one that's over the line? I'll say it again - evangelicals are bigoted pigs and they are beneath contempt.
They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.
posted by 2sheets at 9:07 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia knows full well that we're gay -- but in previous discussions she hasn't compared us to criminals -- and if she did do that, we gave it to her then too. We don't hide, like Haggard or the many GOP closetcases--we speak and we respond and we have personal integrity.

People like that Haggard et al are closeted because they consider themselves superior, more intelligent than their audience, while they are only a lot better at deceptions.

In their view, being homosexual or heterosexual is completely irrelevant, all they need is a target, somebody that may seem curious, alien and therefore may be described as vicious, immoral, cause of all sin, people that can be blamed ; and when they are not blamed, they are seen as inferior, so that in comparison the ones who agree they are inferior feel superior.

What they offer is a feeling of superiority, plus a feeling of being "part of a good group" , plus a feeling of not being alone. On top of this, he says this is the will of a perfect, all seing, all knowing god.

The fact that you and other gay people here speak up and don't shut up isn't seen as a problem, on the contrary it is an opportunity to find fault and point finger at your errors, so that in the eyes of the "believer" the sinner proves by his own behavior he is wicked. Believers, by virtue of having blind faith, only look at evidence that confirm their ideas and vehemently deny any other evidence.

The problem itself can't be found only in Haggard, as another important part of the problem is WHY do people believe the insanity he routinely speaks ; what imho must be challenged is NOT exclusively (or primarily) Haggard the human being, with his faults, shortcomings, hypocrisy and double talking ;rather one should challenge the moral grandstander figure, the persona they act in religios or political or everyday stances.

Haggard in this scheme isn't the target , he is just a covenient poster boy ; one shouldn't confine the criticism ONLY to the person, as he would become an easy scapegoat, a poor miserable human like millions others.

What is viral is the message and the methods, the person "just gets infected" by virtue of his/her own implicit weakness. He will probably get away with "devil made me do, now I am born again ! Rejoice, sing, do anything but remove the memory of what I did ! It was the devil ! "
posted by elpapacito at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2006

have fun playing with your strawman, optimus.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 AM PST on November 3

It's only a strawman if it's not true. All evidence seems to indicate that everything I wrote was a fair assessment.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:18 AM on November 3, 2006

...evangelicals are bigoted pigs and they are beneath contempt.
They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.
posted by 2sheets

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own."

Let's not start on "I know you are, but what am I" schoolyard name-calling, okay?
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:20 AM on November 3, 2006

They are a cancer on a decent, democratic society, and should be treated as such.

Clearly the Best Of The Web, if the web were run by same people that brought you the Rwandan genocide.
posted by dw at 9:21 AM on November 3, 2006

428 (29) posts.

Wow, just wait till you guys find out what Rumsfeld has been up to.
posted by ciderwoman at 9:22 AM on November 3, 2006

As to the note on how Konolia's proslytizing is uncalled for, or how she won't be with family in heaven—
Fundamentalist theology strikes me as a magical version of Hobbes' social covenant. Hobbes' argument about the need for a sovereign to usurp the natural rights of man is only compelling if you view violent death in the state of nature the worst thing possible. If that's your assumption, then it follows that anything done to prevent that is a worthwhile trade.
If you take the assumption that going to Hell is the worst thing possible, and by its definition is the worst thing possible, and a strong sovereign can give you laws to prevent it, then any sacrifice of rights made is acceptable.
So Konolia's acceptance that she probably won't go to heaven with her pets and family is understandable and rational if you believe in heaven and hell, and her desire to save as many people from the worst thing possible is understandable.
However, as one of them depraved nonbelievers, I find that it strains credulity to imagine that the fundamental assumption— the existence of heaven and hell— is true.
I don't mind gullability and superstition, broadly. I wore my Tigers cap all day every day of their playoffs after the loss to the Yankees, and was quite happy in telling myself that I was contributing to their success. But as a pure tactical matter, should Konolia still be reading, you have to understand that trotting out threats on the basis of a magic book is going to alienate a lot of people. If you really want to bring people to Christ, you live your life as compassionately and kindly as possible and let people come to Him through you. This "tough love" stuff is bullshit and counterproductive.
posted by klangklangston at 9:24 AM on November 3, 2006

All evidence seems to indicate that everything I wrote was a fair assessment.

yes, indeed, optimus, I think homophobia is swell. in my spare time, I host Fred Phelps Hoedowns and Pig Roasts. You don't like me, that's your prerogative, but don't go making shit up out of whole cloth just to perpetuate grudges.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist: God allowed these things because of the hardness of our hearts. Polygamy strikes me as one of those things that, like slavery or divorce, makes sense at a certain stage of cultural development, but later on comes to be seen, rightly, as inferior to other, better ways of organizing things.

bardic: Interesting. God is fallible. That's rather un-Thomist of you to admit.

Huh? From the fact that cultures go through stages of development, and that what is permitted at one point comes later to be seen as inferior and prohibited, how does it follow that God is fallible?

mr_roboto: Well, you've pretty well argued Scripture into a corner in the course of your comments here. It's hard to buy it as an authority on anything at this point.

Because Scripture is not to be read the way fundamentalists read it (and the way everyone on mefi seems to think it is to be read), it therefore can't function as an authority on anything? How does that follow? Apparently you think that unless the (screwy) fundamentalist conception of the authority of Scripture is correct, Scripture has no authority?

mr_roboto: reason can be a little more slippery than you've been led to believe. I'll give you two axioms from which to start; argue against them if you care to: pain is bad, pleasure is good.

These "axioms" are formulated in such a clumsy way as to lack sufficient cognitive content to be worth arguing either for or against. Bad in what respect? Good in what way? Do reasonable people really stand around like cavemen and grunt "bad" and "good" at each other? Next I suppose you'll be telling me that pleasure is double-plus good while pain is double-plus ungood, and expecting me to take a stand either for or against these subtle "axioms".

mr_roboto: peeping_Thomist writes "When God allowed polygamy, or slavery, or divorce, it wasn't because he 'didn't have a problem with it,' but rather because the problem he had with it was the kind of problem that can't be addressed by ramming prohibitions down people's throats." This claim seems to deny God's omnipotence. Which is fine, if that's the kind of God you've got.

Sounds like you would agree with the people who claim that God not being powerful enough to square the circle denies God's omnipotence. That strikes me as a bizarre claim.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:29 AM on November 3, 2006

Pastabagel for mayor.

Pastabagel has definitely been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

He has my vote.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:29 AM on November 3, 2006

Ted Haggard allegedly wanted orgy with 18 year old guys.
posted by ericb at 9:37 AM on November 3, 2006

Curiouser and curiouser:

Haggard's accuser fails lie detector

Now, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable (not that much better than gaydar, honestly) and as the article says, the guy's under a lot of stress. Also, I think Haggard's apparent confession has to carry more weight. Still odd.
posted by EarBucket at 9:41 AM on November 3, 2006

"The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.

Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested."
posted by ericb at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006

Asst. Pastor of his church: It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true.

tons and tons of other stuff on him at that link too, including this: ...And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. "I teach a strong ideology of the use of power," he says, "of military might, as a public service." He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible's exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because "the Bible's bloody. There's a lot about blood." ...

He's not seriously seen as a Bible scholar, is he?
posted by amberglow at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006

428 (29) posts.

Wow, just wait till you guys find out what Rumsfeld has been up to.
posted by ciderwoman at 12:22 PM EST on November 3

You have the mother of all MeFi religion threads. A big steaming pile into which to dump all your hatred for religion, whether germane to the topic or not, and on top of that dear sweet Konolia said homosexuality is wrong. Someone even tried to bring SUVs into it but that went nowhere. Maybe Jess was right all along.
posted by caddis at 9:43 AM on November 3, 2006

Nonetheless, the jury is still out on what are the facts regarding Harggard and the current allegations.
posted by ericb at 9:44 AM on November 3, 2006

Curiouser and curiouser:

If nothing else, it finally gave the Drudge Report a story to run.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:45 AM on November 3, 2006

It's addict mentality... Weak, pathetic losers...

your addiction to hubris and arrogance is simply stunning.
posted by quonsar at 9:46 AM on November 3, 2006

yes, indeed, optimus, I think homophobia is swell. in my spare time, I host Fred Phelps Hoedowns and Pig Roasts. You don't like me, that's your prerogative, but don't go making shit up out of whole cloth just to perpetuate grudges.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM PST on November 3

I wasn't talking about you, Mr. Senstive.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:47 AM on November 3, 2006

*group begins splitting hairs with a bevy of finely honed axes.
posted by caddis at 9:50 AM on November 3, 2006

In one scene in the film, Haggard takes a boy, 12, who wants to be a preacher, aside and tells him to "use the cute kid thing until you're 30 and by then you'll have content."

rofl
posted by amberglow at 9:52 AM on November 3, 2006

you were quoting my comment, Captain Obvious.
posted by jonmc at 9:53 AM on November 3, 2006

Well, hold on. If God changed his mind about polygamy, because polygamy was the way of an older society and it was just too complicated to make a fuss about it at the time, maybe the same is true for homophobia.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:02 AM on November 3, 2006

...Haggard's temporary replacement. Set gaydars on "suspension of disbelief."

I think my gaydar is broken. It went from flashing red to solid pink. How do I reset it? There was no manual in the box.
posted by well_balanced at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006

Jeff Sharlet was the author of the Harper's article about Haggard and has reported on him often.

"In Sharlet's current post, he appears to find Jones (the escort) credible and thinks his only axe to grind is anger at Haggard's duplicity.

'I just talked to Jones on the phone. He's not vindictive, nor particularly political; he's voted for Republicans and Democrats. He struggled with his decision, out of compassion for a man in the closet. He was motivated, he said, simply by being a gay man who's been around long enough to know how Ted's politics play out in the ordinary lives of people Jones cares about. That's about as good a motive for outing someone as I've ever heard. This afternoon, Ted announced that he was temporarily stepping down from his positions of authority. A press conference of national evangelical figures that planned to express support for Ted has been called off. Jones has made available recordings he says are of Ted asking him to procure meth, and an envelope in which he says Ted mailed him money.

Jones' story is not yet confirmed, but there seems to be enough for even conservative media outlets let the Colorado Springs Gazette to run with it. It's been big news at the state's major paper, The Denver Post, as well. That's because the story is bigger than Ted; statewide, he's one of the key forces behind two new anti-gay amendements. Nationwide, as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he sets the political tone for the Christian conservative movement at an administrative level broader than the influence of better-known figures such as Jerry Falwell.'

If the story is true, the audacity of Haggard is breathtaking. When you consider the amount of pain he has inflicted on the lives of gay people and how he has twisted his faith to vent anger at gays, it is startling (although, not surprising) that he was seeing a male escort and possibly doing drugs the entire time.


As for political impact, it's unclear how this will effect the Colorado anti-gay marriage amendment. There is a separate civil union/domestic partnership bill that was opposed by Haggard--much to the chargine of the Colorado Springs gang--and the Catholic bishops."

[source]
posted by ericb at 10:08 AM on November 3, 2006

Web Page of Prostitute Accusing Rev. Ted Haggard .
posted by ericb at 10:09 AM on November 3, 2006

dw-

Fair point on the distinction between fundamentalits and evangelicals, but to be fair, these people themselves aren't really making the distinction.

And no, I wouldn't put Graham in with Falwell or Haggard or Robertson, but on the other hand, he's one and they are three, and their clout and cultural influence is rising and his is falling.

I appreciate that there are evangelicals who are hoest and good people, but they aren't the people being discussed here. What wea re talking about are the people who signed on during it's rise to predominance and will bail on the way down for something else. I am talking about the people who co-opted evangelicism to such a degree that outsiders assume they are representative.

But I have a bigger complaint here, with the magical thinking and the appeal to authority. Graham is still the authority to some on the matters of religion. You can call him a teacher, shepherd, whatever, but you have to acknowledge that people will do as he says simply because he said it.

Secondly, none of these leaders are forcing people to really look deep inside and find the ugliness there, own it, take responsibility for it, and deal with it head on. So what we get are people who quit drinking but watch tv 30 hrs a week, or become technofetishists, or monomaniacal in some other way. Or they find people like them to idolize. Not people they want to be, but people who seem to be as they already are.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:13 AM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist: It's nonsense to compare outlawing slavery to squaring the circle. Humans successfully fought and overthrew the institution of slavery (in many separate instances). It can be defeated with power that is decidedly non-omnipotent. Furthermore, defeating something isn't necessary to claim some sort of morality: the Abrahamic god outlawed murder, which still exists. By contrast, squaring the circle is a logical impossibility. If God is going to lay down laws for me to live by, the absolute least I expect of Him is to live up to my own (presumably flawed) moral standards. If your god can't say: regardless of what you do or think, slavery is always wrong, racism is always wrong, genocide is always wrong .... then frankly I'm just not going to listen to anything he says. I think that the only moral "out" is to claim that God is against those things, but somehow lacked the power to fight them. That's probably what mr_roboto assumed you meant.
posted by Humanzee at 10:18 AM on November 3, 2006

Off-topic, but part of the prurient swirl of hypocrisy --

ABC News: RNC Accepts Money From Army Porn Movie Distributor.
posted by ericb at 10:20 AM on November 3, 2006

If God changed his mind about polygamy, [snip] maybe the same is true for homophobia.

God seems to change his mind about a great number of things. Including if he actually has changed his mind.

The problem is no Deist knows, or can agree with another Deist, in what 80% of what god says, wants, does, or doesn't do. They make it up.

Engaging in this discussion of how we should interpret scripture about homosexuals is useless. It's ALL rationalization for whatever the individual believer wants. The scripture is contradictory gibberish.

They believe any horrible violent act or crime is all part of god's plan. And what they ALL want out of God's Plan is the big happy pay day of eternal life. And the worst want to see non believers waterboarded for eternity. This is not a healthy philosophy.
posted by tkchrist at 10:21 AM on November 3, 2006

One thing this thread has failed to do is show some evidence (quotes) where Haggard is a hate-filled homophobe. If anyone could present some of those, I might be a touch less inclined to find this thread so hate-filled itself.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:21 AM on November 3, 2006

Adding to the "swirl" --

NY Daily News: National Republican Campaign Committee's 'Damage Control' Two Days Before the Foley Affair Became Public; Earlier Than Previously Reported.
posted by ericb at 10:23 AM on November 3, 2006

BrodieShadeTree writes "One thing this thread has failed to do is show some evidence (quotes) where Haggard is a hate-filled homophobe."

I'm sorry, but which part of "leading the cause of making gay people second-class citizens" sounds "not hateful" to you? You might as well argue that "back of the bus" laws in the 1950s never inconvenienced anyone because they didn't prevent black people from taking the bus -- just that they couldn't sit up front.
posted by clevershark at 10:30 AM on November 3, 2006

ericb writes "ABC News: RNC Accepts Money From Army Porn Movie Distributor."

Now that is just too funny.
posted by clevershark at 10:33 AM on November 3, 2006

clevershark: is that a quote from him, because what I would like to see are quotes in context. Say, from a sermon or a newsletter. He is being painted in a very bad light by many who I think, like me, have never heard/read him before. Just asking for context or proof of his hate, not a personal brow beating.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:38 AM on November 3, 2006

He is being painted in a very bad light by many who I think, like me, have never heard/read him before. Just asking for context or proof of his hate, not a personal brow beating.

Do you know how to google? Just type this: "ted haggard sermon" into the search bar.
posted by c13 at 10:42 AM on November 3, 2006

Maybe I am being dense. This thread is nearing 500 comments and what I am saying is it needs some of his words here as evidence etc....you know, for posterity and to inform the tone of this thread.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:44 AM on November 3, 2006

Well, your info does not say where you're from so forgive me if I'm wrong, but Haggard is a pretty well known guy here in America. Unfortunately. So for us to put links to his assholishness here is like providing the evidence that GWB invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
posted by c13 at 10:51 AM on November 3, 2006

Nobody else here is outraged by the fact that Haggard could only afford a 49 year old prostitute? The sacrifices our men in cloth make, having to pass over the more expensive and more delectable younger prostitutes. Haggard should be considered a model of virtue by helping save the job of a middle-aged American worker when so many others are going to the Dominican Republic for sweat shop labor.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:55 AM on November 3, 2006

Brodie, you're just being lazy. Do a search on The Google and you can read countless articles about him and his bigoted beliefs. Scroll through comments and look at the link to the video (from the documentary) of Haggard preaching about the evils of homosexuality. Click on the Harper's link and read the article about his mega-church. Use the force.
posted by mijuta at 11:00 AM on November 3, 2006

dances_with_sneetches writes "Nobody else here is outraged by the fact that Haggard could only afford a 49 year old prostitute?"

It must be hard to find an 18-year-old self-described "muscle stud" in Denver...
posted by clevershark at 11:03 AM on November 3, 2006

You're a disgrace to metafilter, and a bigot.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:08 AM EST on November 3

I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them. She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so. You are accusing her of lobbing insults when she never set out to insult anyone. Also, it's not like she only pops into religious threads to proselytize.

I for one am grateful to periodically hear her views, as they usually don't come larded with the kind of knee jerk vitriol you display.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006

He just came out and gave an interview saying he met the gay hooker at a motel for a massage, and he bought crystal meth but he threw it away.
BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Keep defending him and making excuses. This is awesome.
posted by 2sheets at 11:09 AM on November 3, 2006

"She really believes this stuff"
That is the worst excuse for anything. I don't think I need to go Godwin here to make my point.
posted by 2sheets at 11:11 AM on November 3, 2006

Keep defending him and making excuses. This is awesome.
posted by 2sheets at 2:09 PM EST on November 3

Um, who is defending him?
posted by Pastabagel at 11:16 AM on November 3, 2006

He just came out and gave an interview

2sheets, link?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:19 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so.

God also says you go to hell for lying.

Even a teeny white lie.

I feel that is now my duty to inform all of you that you're hell bound sinners in teh hands of an angry God!

And I tell you not to condemn you but because I care. Damn filthy second class trash!
posted by nofundy at 11:23 AM on November 3, 2006

The local affiliate has it now.
They're airing the interview on MSNBC. It's really pathetic. He thinks he can get away with just admitting what can be proven by his accuser.
posted by 2sheets at 11:24 AM on November 3, 2006

CunningLinguist writes "She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them. She sincerely believes gays are as sinful as pedophiles - because God says so."

Ahem.
posted by clevershark at 11:25 AM on November 3, 2006

She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them.

If that were all she did, that would be fine with me. But she and the rest of her ilk are perfectly ok with having the state enforce her beliefs on me, and that is not fine with me.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:27 AM on November 3, 2006

Humanzee: If your god can't say: regardless of what you do or think, slavery is always wrong, racism is always wrong, genocide is always wrong .... then frankly I'm just not going to listen to anything he says.

My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong, and furthermore he offers to give you every resource you require in order to become the person you already know you should be but are not. Why should the fact that he refuses to flatter you like a politician issuing position papers designed to fit the opinions of the electorate keep you from listening to what he has to say?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2006

Pastabagel,

Hold the feeble revisionism, will you?

First you sneer: "It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations... I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc. "T

Then you say smoothly: "Also, I wasn't suggeting that people who are addicted are weak. The issue is how you get through it. Addiciton is a test. I hope that was clear."

Then a third bite at the subject, and we're back to the superior vibe of the first statement, with "So what we get are people who quit drinking but watch tv 30 hrs a week, or become technofetishists, or monomaniacal in some other way...."

If I hadn't been called out on calling you out - I'd shut up.

But as a cradle atheist (big deal) who is fascinated by this story, I think you're starting to exemplify why some damaged people are driven to a mega-churches and its seductive brand of garbage.

Why is the "issue" "HOW you get through" addiction?

As I said before, your sentiments sound like James Frey-style BS.
posted by Jody Tresidder at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2006

"She really believes this stuff"
That is the worst excuse for anything.

It's an excuse against the accusation that she is actively trying to insult and hurt people.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:33 AM on November 3, 2006

Evangelist Admits Meth, Massage, No Sex

Evangelist Ted Haggard admitted Friday that he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the outspoken gay marriage opponent.
posted by wfrgms at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006

Here is a screen grab of this escort's perfectly innocent looking page advertising massage services.
posted by 2sheets at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006

Thanks for the link, 2sheets.... that is quite an interview.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:36 AM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Ahem.
posted by clevershark at 11:25 AM PST on November 3

Yes?
posted by dw at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006

So did anyone catch Kuo on CNN just now, desperately trying to change the subject?

"History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ."

"It's not about Ted, it's about Jesus!"

Sad. So very sad.
posted by darukaru at 11:39 AM on November 3, 2006

My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong

Okeydokey.

I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong.

So how exactly have your God, Scripture, Tradition and reason clearly taught you to see for yourself that sexual activity between two men in a committed lifelong relationship is wrong? I'm particularly curious what process of reason leads to this conclusion.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:43 AM on November 3, 2006

Uh, that's like Clinton saying he didn't inhale...yeah right, and Haggard didn't come, suuure.

History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ.

Ah the Jesus Card ! It is used to derail the believer into thinking it is an attack on Jesus or something.
posted by elpapacito at 11:45 AM on November 3, 2006

CunningLinguist writes "I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them."

I really believe that Jews have horns and ritually drink the blood of Christian babies. I really believe it. I'm trying to do good by warning Jews that if they don't accept Jesus as their personal savior they'll go to Hell and be eternally tormented. I really believe this.

I'm trying to do good by warning non-Jews that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the Jews' true plan for world domination. I really believe this. I'm trying to warn good upright Aryan women that the Eternal Jew will try to rape them to impregnate them with his evil seed. I really believe this.

I hope you'll stand up for me too. At least, you'll oppose hanging me for my views, ja?

Yours Sincerely,
Julius Streicher
posted by orthogonality at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006

Ok, how's this?: CunningLinguist, you are an idiot. .. But see, I'm not trying to insult you--understand? I actually believe it.
posted by applemeat at 11:48 AM on November 3, 2006

I really believe that Jews have horns and ritually drink the blood of Christian babies. I really believe it.

I for one am grateful to periodically hear your views.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:55 AM on November 3, 2006

I'm late but have to stand up for Konolia. She really believes this stuff and as such, she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them.

Her behavior is inconsistent with that theory, as is the behavior of right-ish evangelical fundamentalists generally.

If she were acting out of some driven desire to stop people sinning, she would be in all of the fat threads railing against gluttony and in all of the should-I-leave-my-spouse askmes railing against divorce and railing against hard-heartedness and uncharitability and a host of other things that are at least as sinful as gay sex, and chiming in on a lot of other askmes urging people towards forgiveness even at their own expense.

But she only seems to actually chime in when it's about the gay sex.

Her behavior is consistent with someone who just doesn't like gays very much, or thinks gay sex is icky. Her behavior is not consistent with someone motivated by trying to keep people out of Hell by getting them to stop sinning.

Beyond which, even if her behavior were somehow consistent with a generalized concern of keeping people out of Hell, her actions and words are inconsistent with Christian belief. Trying to get people out of Hell by telling them to stop sinning is a fool's game, and guaranteed to fail if you buy into the Bible story. The whole fucking point of that little incident with God being killed on the cross was that no matter how much you tell people to stop sinning, they won't. If she were really concerned about getting people out of Hell, she would be behaving in a way that was actually successful in getting people to come to Christ. Her blustering is anything but.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:01 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

So did anyone catch Kuo on CNN just now, desperately trying to change the subject?

"History will not remember what happens on Tuesday, but history will remember Jesus Christ."

"It's not about Ted, it's about Jesus!"

Sad. So very sad.

I think it's tough for Kuo -- thrown to the side by Dobson and Haggard, then forgotten when teh gay sex becomes more salacious than his book.

I haven't read it, but I've heard it's a very interesting read if you're an evangelical.
posted by dw at 12:03 PM on November 3, 2006

My God invites you to live in a way that will allow you to see for yourself what things are right and wrong, and furthermore he offers to give you every resource you require in order to become the person you already know you should be but are not.

Do you believe that atheists can live a moral life? How about people who are never informed that God exists?

Why should the fact that he refuses to flatter you like a politician issuing position papers designed to fit the opinions of the electorate keep you from listening to what he has to say?

You skirted the question - why does He change his mind? Why were polygamy and slavery ok a few thousand years ago, but not now? You stated that there might be "better ways," but I submit to you that slavery is always evil, and was always evil, and always will be evil. Your God sounds like quite the moral relativist to me.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:10 PM on November 3, 2006

This has been a thoroughly depressing and disheartening read. Thanks a lot.

*heads to liquor cabinet*
posted by jonmc at 12:11 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh come on Ortho and applemeat, you seems to be missing cunnilinguist point entirely

she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them

Now if cunni is correct, she (or anybody else, she being konolia is relevant only here) is just after offering and proposing salvation from hell a.k.a. from a live of pain and suffering.

Is she delusional ? Possibly ! Still I differentiate between trying to do something with "good" means (proposing, proselitizing, discussing) and trying to do the same thing with "bad" means ( imposing, legislating, bashing, ostracizing and the all fucking set) or doing both ways at the same time, an indication of more problems.

The problem , at least with me, starts when somebody plays The God Card, saying that what they say is endorsed by an all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent being and that they are only bringing His message. What the hell ? An omnipotent being ? Uh uh yeah sure. Exposing kids to that is awful.

Yet some say that while _really believing_ there could be a God, possibily they are delusional and may only need some help, many of them don't mean to harm, even if their way of helping doesn't really help either ; I think they are used as hostages or exploited by these who _don't believe_ there is a God, proclaim they believe, hook these people and abuse them.

To keep a long tought short, Konolia et al may actually _believe_ they are doing "good" and may merit some attention, maybe even an attempt to offer them a more reasoned viewpoint from which they could use their "will to do good" ; others are just playing bashing politics, hiding behind sanctity and playing head games, and they deserve, imho, no compassion.
posted by elpapacito at 12:19 PM on November 3, 2006

*heads to liquor cabinet*

Can I offer you a massage and a hit of meth?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:22 PM on November 3, 2006

elpapacito, in honor of that last paragraph, here's a a virtual beer: (_)>
posted by jonmc at 12:23 PM on November 3, 2006

"*heads to liquor cabinet*"

Prov. 31

6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.

7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:26 PM on November 3, 2006

Haggard told reporters that he bought the methamphetamine for himself. He says, "I was tempted, but I never used it." Haggard told reporters he bought the meth because he was curious -- but that he then threw it away.

He also says he never had sex with Jones. He says he received a massage from him after being referred to him by a Denver hotel.
posted by EarBucket at 12:28 PM on November 3, 2006

Argh. Missed wfrgms's link above, sorry.
posted by EarBucket at 12:29 PM on November 3, 2006

I could care less whether Konolia is "trying to do good" or not. The fact is that her "trying to do good" = equating homosexuals with pedophiles and claiming homosexuals are going to hell. Therefore her "trying to do good" is really friggin' offensive and self-righteous. She deserves to be called out on it. And anyone who tries to defend her by effectively stating "But this is her religious belief! Respect what she believes, it comes from a place of kindness!" deserves to be called out for their lame, jack-ass reasoning.
posted by mijuta at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006

Can I offer you a massage and a hit of meth?

Only if you grow some boobs and put on a Wonder Woman costume.
posted by jonmc at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006

I have to weigh in one more time because this is just so rich. So we're supposed to believe that Haggard bought methamphetamine from a muscle bound "masseuse" AND got a "massage" from said masseuse and the two of them did NOT have crank-fueled gay whore monkey sex?
posted by Toecutter at 12:30 PM on November 3, 2006

mijuta: use your head. do you honestly think that's what we're doing?
posted by jonmc at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2006

she is perfectly consistent and in fact, as she says, actually trying to do good by warning homosexuals of the fate she believes is in store for them


um...road to hell...good intentions...something like that
posted by SBMike at 12:36 PM on November 3, 2006

This guy totally set off my methdar.
posted by Nahum Tate at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

No wonder he admits the meth part. He's caught on voice mails trying to buy drugs, not sex.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:44 PM on November 3, 2006

Why yes, of course, Toecutter.

He is, after all, one of God's chosen men and would never do sinful things.

On a more serious note, we've now gotten a confession that he did know his employee and did meet with him in a hotel.

Let's see what the hotel management has to say about the "I met him through the hotel's recommendation [cough] of where to find a good meth connection that provides gay sex" angle.

If the hotel concurs with that off-the-cuff story then we know where Rush Limbaugh with his kiddie porn and Viagra are going next vacation!
posted by nofundy at 12:46 PM on November 3, 2006

Armitage_Shanks: So how exactly have your God, Scripture, Tradition and reason clearly taught you to see for yourself that sexual activity between two men in a committed lifelong relationship is wrong? I'm particularly curious what process of reason leads to this conclusion.

There's not time or space to say much in depth here, but I can at least try to clear up some confusions.

Many people are disgusted at the thought of same-sex sexual activity, and derive their negative views about such activity from this disgust. That doesn't seem to me a reliable way of reasoning about moral questions, and in any case I don't share the disgust, so it's not relevant to me.

I'm amazed by the reality of embodiment. I am troubled when I hear people talking as though we are disembodied rational wills who "own" our bodies and can use our bodies to achieve whatever ends we happen to have (so long as we respect the rights of other disembodied rational wills to use their bodies to pursue whatever ends they happen to have). This way of thinking about embodiment denies important truths that we know about ourselves from experience. I'm not sure how to articulate all those truths, but I can gesture toward them by saying that I think the body is something to be looked up to, something that has an integrity or wholeness that needs to be treated with respect.

I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

These kinds of reflections lead me to reject contraception (which seek to deliver sex without babies) as well as many of the new reproductive technologies (which seek to deliver babies without sex). They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.

Furthermore, in my experience arguments in favor of severing the link between sex and babies invariably assume a dualistic anthropology and a consequentialist moral methodology. I think there are rationally compelling reasons to reject both assumptions.

So, because I think traditional sexual morality is reasonable in its own right, and because the arguments of those who reject traditional sexual morality rely on assumptions that are unreasonable, I think there's good reason to continue to affirm traditional sexual morality.

This is all too compressed, of course, but there's a freaking huge literature on this stuff if you're interested in it. You might want to look at Karol Wojtyla's _Theology of the Body_, or at a popularized summary of Wojtyla's thought.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:47 PM on November 3, 2006

I am troubled when I hear people talking as though we are disembodied rational wills who "own" our bodies and can use our bodies to achieve whatever ends we happen to have (so long as we respect the rights of other disembodied rational wills to use their bodies to pursue whatever ends they happen to have). This way of thinking about embodiment denies important truths that we know about ourselves from experience.

Why does this trouble you? What truths from experience lead you to believe that the body should not be subject to the will? Surely the examples of the martyred saints, many of whom died for their beliefs, is a counterexample - I'm sure their bodies were telling them to live, to do anything to stay alive, whatever the cost. Isn't the body the source of sin - our irrational desires that incline us to do what we think is wrong?

I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

Surely, you can't mean that any sexual act must result in procreation? What if you're barren or impotent? Is the rhythm method immoral? If not, why aren't other methods of contraception moral as well? Doesn't sex, as an expression of love within a relationship, have a positive value regardless of whether it results in a new human life?

They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.

If the gift of new human life cannot result from a specific instance of sexual congress, why should that activity be rejected on its face?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:00 PM on November 3, 2006

so, he got massages once a month for years, or meth once a month for years? or what?

peeping, there's something sacred about all sex between 2 consenting adults--not just procreative sex.
Your Darwinism shows when you restrict it to that, you know. ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:00 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh, I guess all the martyred saints died for their beliefs, as opposed to many of them. Sorry.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:01 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist:

That's an impressive post, even though it appears you've got the naturalistic fallacy lying in ambush there. Since you're apparently a big fan of both Humanae Vitae and Aquinas, I'm guessing you're a Catholic. So I'm (really truly honestly) curious as to why you don't refer to Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:03 PM on November 3, 2006

I think adequately respecting our embodiment requires taking seriously the link between sex and babies. That link is not something arbitrary or accidental. Human persons unite sexually, and this union tends to generate new human persons. There is something sacred about sex, since there is something sacred about the human persons who are generated through sex.

These kinds of reflections lead me to reject contraception (which seek to deliver sex without babies) as well as many of the new reproductive technologies (which seek to deliver babies without sex). They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life.


What's the problem with sex without babies? I know that in the Jewish tradition at least, this idea does not exist. Sex is for making babies as well as for pleasure. In fact, even if a man's wife is barren or too old to conceive, he still has an obligation to pleasure his wife. A sexless relationship is grounds for a divorce for either partner. It's also interesting to note that many rabbis oppose condoms but not the birth control pill. The reasoning is not that it creates an incentive to have sex without conceiving, but that it takes away from the pleasure of sex.

This idea is just borne of an anti-pleasure attitude that has little to do with morality (IMO). Convincing people that pleasure is bad lets you keep them conflicted, desperate, and confused, and makes them ripe to believe lots of other things. And because people tend to like pleasure, this line of thought neatly separates people into righteous self-deniers who can pat themselves on the back for constantly resisting temptation (even if they do so for no good reason), and heathen self-indulgers.

You're anti-contraception attitude is really just an anti-fun attitude.
posted by SBMike at 1:04 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

I have to weigh in one more time because this is just so rich. So we're supposed to believe that Haggard bought methamphetamine from a muscle bound "masseuse" AND got a "massage" from said masseuse and the two of them did NOT have crank-fueled gay whore monkey sex?

Meth use and massage are incompatible activities. Meth and sex, however, go together like happy (though eventually through regular use psychotic) bunnies and sunshine. I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.
posted by jokeefe at 1:05 PM on November 3, 2006

Meth use and massage are incompatible activities. Meth and sex, however, go together like happy (though eventually through regular use psychotic) bunnies and sunshine. I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.


Bunnies!! Sunshine!!! yaay

Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.
posted by giantfist at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: Do you believe that atheists can live a moral life? How about people who are never informed that God exists?

Everyone knows in some way that God exists, even those who say that God does not exist. This implanted knowledge, however, can be very confused and mixed with errors, such as happens when people say that their leaders are gods, or say that human actions can be fully accounted for by referring to our physical constitution.

me_&_my_monkey: why does He change his mind? Why were polygamy and slavery ok a few thousand years ago, but not now?

They weren't "OK". Given the primitive state of cultural development at the time, they were the best that people could be brought to do.

me_&_my_monkey: Your God sounds like quite the moral relativist to me.

And anyone who isn't something of a moral relativist isn't paying attention.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:08 PM on November 3, 2006

I fail to see how anyone on crank would lie still for a nice relaxing massage; it doesn't compute.

It's not just a regular massage, it's a prostate massage, if you know what I mean.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:10 PM on November 3, 2006

Peeping has stated before that he uses the rhythm method, so he's not as strict an adherent to his beliefs as he'd have you believe.
posted by maxwelton at 1:11 PM on November 3, 2006

Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.

Is there anyone here who actually takes this man's word at face value any longer? I mean, sheesh. (Btw, anyone who believes this statement, I have some swampland in Florida an awesome holiday timeshare that I can sell you, cheap. Email's in profile.
posted by jokeefe at 1:12 PM on November 3, 2006

Nahum_Tate: you've got the naturalistic fallacy lying in ambush there

I am underwhelmed by the naturalistic fallacy. Or, to put it another way, I reflecting on the supposed naturalistic fallacy reveals that the phrase "morally ought," as used by modern moralists, has no cognitive content. For the classic statement of this claim, which I accept, see Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:16 PM on November 3, 2006

what SBMike said about pleasure and us Jews : >
(but many rabbis are sexist too, so it's about the man's pleasure more than anything else)


Dude claims he threw the meth away before using it though.
He's lying---his own words prove it.
"Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more."
posted by amberglow at 1:21 PM on November 3, 2006

and meanwhile, in FL: ...Questions about the sexual orientation of Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist sparked a rare show of temper by Gov. Jeb Bush today, who called a television reporter a "horse's ass" for cutting off a query from another journalist.
Rumors about Crist being gay have swirled around the campaign for months, but he has constantly denied them.
Outside the Mi Viejo San Juan restaurant, a mob of TV reporters cornered Bush and Crist, peppering them with questions about a gay rights group's call earlier in the day for Crist to come out of the closet. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on November 3, 2006

I have never ever EVER heard of someone who doesn't use drugs buying them and then throwing them away. And a grown man? More then once? Ugh. Can we get the real truth, Ted? Please?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:26 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

and FWIW, konolia, I have to agree that the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is offensive and you probably knew it would hurt and anger many of us, so I think an apology is owed for that.

Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God. Sex is not just sex, and not just procreation, and not just fun on a nice Sunday afternoon. Marriage between a man and a woman is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Even the Bible admits that the comparison is a mystery but nevertheless God is pretty serious about the seriousness of sexual sin.

If I were to hate people because they were sinners I would have to hate just about everyone. We are all helpless, all unable to be holy in ourselves, all in need of a Saviour to justify us before a heavenly court (the doctrine of justification is a judicial doctrine and justification is a legal term.) When we are born again, legally our sins are forgiven and we are restored to fellowship with God. Sanctification is the step by step process whereby we grow in Christ, acting more and more like Him and less and less like sinners. That part is definitely a process.

I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL. If that gets brickbats thrown my way, well, I'll simply have to duck or say ouch or both.
posted by konolia at 1:28 PM on November 3, 2006

They weren't "OK". Given the primitive state of cultural development at the time, they were the best that people could be brought to do.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horseshit. How primitive was the state of cultural development one hundred and fifty years ago? Your God was content to allow slavery to exist for thousands of years, because it was "the best that people could be brought to do." Anything can be excused this way, I guess.

And anyone who isn't something of a moral relativist isn't paying attention.

That's a glib response, but not very helpful. If God can't even provide moral guidance to His believers, what good is He? God, as you describe Him, sounds ... evil.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:32 PM on November 3, 2006

You are a class act konolia.
posted by caddis at 1:36 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist: Boaz, we have the natural law imprinted on our hearts

Oh really, you who would demand that we non-religious types must learn more about religious bunk before we call it the bunk we know it is . . . .

So, maybe you could be bothered to learn more about anatomy and physiology, and then you can show us where "natural law" is "imprinted" on the heart muscle of your average hominid. Funny, I've seen a few hearts in my time, and they had no writing on them at all.

Atheists owe nothing to believers. Believers owe the rest of us a simple demonstration of the proof of the existence of their "God." hey need to explain how followers of "natural law" are better people, or homing in on a truth the rest of us have missed. They need to explain how "natural law" (read: evolution) commands us not to do the few specific things they (or their particular cult or sect) thinks are "unnatural." They need to explain why literally dozens of animal species seem to survive and thrive despite a proclivity for the occasional same-sex coupling. For that matter, what kind of natural law explains the proclivity of many species to kill other members of their species, not only without consequence, but with positive benefit for reproductive fitness?

There is nothing "natural" about "law" as you use the term. "Law" is, in the sense you mean, a human cultural abstraction. Laws made by men can be changed by men (and women), and routinely are. A hundred years ago it was against "natural law" in the US for a white person to have sex with a black person (apparently -- call me, Harold -- this is still true in God's own country, Tennessee). A few thousand years ago, it was against "natural law" to eat shellfish in one peculiar and rather dry part of the world. Very, very few "laws" of man have any demonstrable "natural" force - that is, they would have to be true everywhere and at all times for all members of the species, regardless of what humans might think or say. The best generalization from cross-cultural evidence is that all human societies have some proscriptions against incest (and there may well be a natural basis in reproductive fitness for this) and against "murder" (but not against killing as such, viz. the daily headlines from Iraq, where we have killed tens of thousands for reasons we justify as "natural" and righteous). Right wing nonsense to the contrary, "marriage between a man and a woman" is by no means the universal basis of human society, any more than believing in a bearded white savior who hung on a cross and rose from the dead. Procreative sex between men and women, which does not rule out non-procreative sex between men and women or men and men or women and women or men and dogs -- now that's a universal basis for human society, until women can reproduce without male assistance. Everything else is just an option package.

The laws of nature are real "laws" in a totally different sense than you mean by "natural law" -- in the sense that they are incontrovertible and always true and in the sense that while they are certainly the subject of human abstraction (as in this post), are true anyway and at all times, whether abstracted and made conscious subjects of reflexive apprehension or not. Those laws, according to the best science, boil down to these: eat (and, usually, kill) to survive, to reproduce, feed your babies and keep them alive until they can reproduce, and then you die. How we get there, within any particular species or biological epoch, is a matter of some quite impressive variation, even within the historical and ethnographic record of human societies. Sometimes we kill to fulfill our "natural" legal obligations, even though man-made laws often proscribe killing. Even when they do, we justify killing on "natural" grounds - the appeal to sentiments of hate and revenge and justice that undergirds war and the death penalty, for example.

So maybe you could be bothered, Thomist (how fitting an archaism), to learn something about nature before you spout off about "natural" this and "natural" that and accuse others of being insufficiently acquainted with an ancient work of fiction from another society entirely and its relevance to a few milion idiots who fail to participate fully in our modern, science-based society, and think "God said" being gay, or anything else, for that matter, was "unnatural" or "against the law."

Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person, given how much we now know about both religion and nature. We just do not yet live in a reasonable age . .. yet. Fine, decry and deny reason in defense of your beliefs. But then don't claim rational bases for those beliefs. There are none that apply universally, despite the rhetoric from the Christian right. None. You may get laid, eat better, and reproduce more efficiently because you joined up with the church that is such a powerful social institution in our current piddling little moment of evolutionary history. Heck, Pastor Art Ted sure did fine for himself -- money, a wife, five kids . . . the very emblem of reproductive fitness. And yet he still had to get his slice of man meat on the side. It didn't seem to affect his reproductive fitness one whit. Were it not for the views of his followers, it would be no big deal. He could go on providing for his children until they are old enough to reproduce, and die having fulfilled his (natural) "legal" obligations as a human being.

If even good Christian (gays and bisexuals, which apparently includes most Republicans) can't resist the occasional gay tryst, how unnatural is it, really? So, one more time for the woolgatherers, it's the hypocrisy, stupid. That's why this is delightful news, as it is every single time a Christian (or any other moral fundamentalist) is revealed to be a lying scumbag using "religion" to build political power and wealth. Hypocrites exposed are always entertaining, and enlightening. This isn't schadenfreude; it's justice. It's only "natural," after all, to take pleasure in seeing justice administered to a bastard. God would, if you believe his characterization in the old testament and the Koran, perhaps even approve of the public shaming Haggard will now endure. Not so long ago, his Christian followers might even have stoned him to death, but of course that wouldn't be murder. It woud be "God's justice," pursuant to "natural law."

If you really want to go all biblical, let's get into the story of the Publican and the Pharisee. The moral of that parable, as I recall, is that he who prays the loudest prays with the least sincerity and should be shunned in favor of showing grace to those who admit to being imperfect and don't parade their own moral righteousness in the public square. Ted "Art" Haggard is a classic example of the type Christ explicitly condemned -- a wealthy, righteous hypocrite meddling in politics in the name of religion and proclaiming his own virtue -- as are many of his followers. And to compound it, he denies being a sinner and accuses (or lets his followers accuse) others of immorality for daring to call him out as a hypocrite. The cock (hardeeharhar) hasn't even crowed three times and already it's "who me, a sinner?"

That's why you know anyone who rails loudly against "teh gayz" is gay, or at least confused and ashamed about his/her own sexuality, whether or not s/he acts on it or gets caught doing so. Moralism is not morality. Morality, even if you do buy that shit, has no basis in nature, only in social convention. Nature doesn't care what you do as long as you send your genes hurtling into the next generation.

When the religious nuts learn some basic science, which deals in proven and observable facts and provable or at least likely to be provable assertions (we call them hypotheses or arguments or -- gasp -- "theories") based on those facts, then I'll take it seriously when you tell me to learn more about your religion and its silly books, which refer to few if any provable or observable facts and build entire theories on the basis of disprovable assumptions disguised as assertions, like the assertion that there is a "natural law" "inscribed" on the human heart. You state that as a premise, as if it were obviously true, when it is nothing but a tired anatomical metaphor. After all, if the law is written on our hearts, what need do we have for books at all, including the bible? How do I read this "inscription" on my heart?

As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers whose greatest moral mission is to kill teh gayz and who preach the gospel of "prosperity" are the Chosen Ones and the rest of us are damned to hell is funny as shit, on its face. I'd love to drop the lot of them into the middle of Darfur for a week and then ask them where God is this week.

[end rant/]
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:36 PM on November 3, 2006 [19 favorites]

Calling other people sinners for not following the rules of her religion is bigotry. Bigotry, not faith, is the reason I called Konolia a "disgrace."
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:37 PM on November 3, 2006

i was raised in a baptist church. people like konolia showed me what a complete and utter bunch of bullshit it all was, so thanks for that i guess.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:43 PM on November 3, 2006

I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God.

OK, I'll grant that you believe this. But do you see that there is a substantive difference between homosexual behavior of consenting adults, and other sexual "sins" like adultery, pederasty and rape? That the latter can be identified as bad behavior because of the obvious harm they cause to their victims? Can you see why people might take offense to your comparison?

Do you feel that gay people should be treated as second-class citizens because they don't believe what you do? Do you think that your beliefs should have the weight of law behind them? Don't people need to be able to choose between right and wrong?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:44 PM on November 3, 2006

Konolia: "Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God."

Oh, please. You equated homosexuality with pedophilia. Fundies always pair the two, as if they had anything to do with each other. It's a cliched ploy fundies have been trotting out for years. You can try to act like an innocent little child of Christ, and others can pat you on the back and say you're a class act because of it, but every time you demean homosexuals by equating them with child molesters, expect to get called out on it by people who are sick and tired of your twisted belief system that seeks to restrict the basic civil rights of other law-abiding citizens.
posted by mijuta at 1:47 PM on November 3, 2006

We are all helpless, all unable to be holy in ourselves, all in need of a Saviour to justify us before a heavenly court...

But aren't all sins equally bad in the eyes of God? If everyone's a sinner, and this sanctification process can only start after a sinner has been born again, does it make any sense to try to reform the sinner before they've accepted Jesus? Why harp on the homosexuality thing, or any other particular sin? Focus on winning people over to this kind, loving Savior of yours -- if there's anything to this Christianity stuff, the rest will follow.
posted by gigawhat? at 1:48 PM on November 3, 2006

Peeping, are you seriously suggesting that a woman who has had uterine cancer should never have sex again? Or, that women who for other physical reasons are unable to concieve should never have sex ever? Do you really believe this?
posted by Hildegarde at 1:50 PM on November 3, 2006

severing the link between sex and babies invariably assume a dualistic anthropology and a consequentialist moral methodology.


Conseque... wha?

That seals the deal for me.

Anybody still disputing the movement to take us back to the 15th century and eradicate birth control (and non-reproductive sex for pleasure)... there is your proof.

And they use biiiig words.
posted by tkchrist at 1:54 PM on November 3, 2006

Of course, none of this changes the fact that "Ted Haggard" would be an awesome fuckin' name for a punk rock band.
posted by gigawhat? at 2:06 PM on November 3, 2006

If anyone's still reading this and wants some really sweet-ass schadenfreude, watch him "debate" Richard Dawkins on youtube.
posted by condour75 at 2:11 PM on November 3, 2006

Just once, just once, I'd like to see a discussion about Christianity that doesn't end up with people tossing Biblical quotes around.

Appealing to authority really isn't persuasive, no matter who you think that authority is or what they're saying.
posted by aramaic at 2:15 PM on November 3, 2006

As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers whose greatest moral mission is to kill teh gayz

fourcheesemac, do you have to condemn all Christians as gay-hating? Many of the more liberal churches couldn't care less what your sexual orientation is, and as I mentioned above, the Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

(I like your choice of parable, though. Very fitting.)
posted by Upton O'Good at 2:16 PM on November 3, 2006

... Wait, our President holds a weekly call with a married man who allegedly uses amphetamines and has sex with a gay male hooker?
That made me think -- how would Matt Drudge be handling this situation if it were two Democrats involved?


Every time i see Haggard's face on TV i think of that parody of the Hardy Boys on South Park the other week in the 9/11 conspiracy ep. ("I'm getting a HUUUUUuge clue. Me too--I'm getting an even HUUUUUUger clue." )
posted by amberglow at 2:18 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia writes: When we are born again, legally our sins are forgiven

So this is why you need the Jews for Jesus?

Note to self: There's one user who can smear a large number of mefites as being pedophiles and who won't get a tempo-ban. Interesting.

From this day forward, I want to make it clear that I am sincere in my secular and libertarian beliefs. If I ever offend you, that's because you just don't realize how sincere I am. It's your fault, douche-nozzle, for being so "insensitive" to my beliefs. According to caddis, this makes me the epitome of "classiness."

And I've never done meth, so someone explains something to me. I've heard it makes you feel very sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine. I've also heard, in this thread, that it makes your pecker shrivel up to the size of a walnut. So what gives?
posted by bardic at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2006

Well, I certainly wasn't saying that homosexuals were pedophiles. But both types of sexual behavior, along with adultery and fornication and rape are condemned by God.

Konolia.

Dear.

As a brother in Christ:

PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE STOP MAKING AN ASS OF YOURSELF.

OK, see, in saying what you're saying, you are implying that homosexual == pedophile. And that's not so.

Yes, they are both sins. But all sins are equal in the eyes of God. And as Paul says, "all sin and fall short of the glory of God."

But you know what else is a sin? Being priggish, combative, and creating discord and strife. And, you know, that currently has you rooming with Dan Savage, Hitler, and Ann Coulter in a two bedroom Malebolge apartment. Overlooking the beautiful flaming tar pits. For all eternity.

In the name of Jesus, repent. Apologize for making the implication that those who like teh gay sex like to have it with teh young boys. Because, honestly, you're pissing me off and making people like PastaBagel think me == Fred Phelps. Or Dobson. Or something.

You might want to turn to John 17 and give that a refresher read, too. Because, you know, it's a lot easier to share the love of Jesus when you're actually loving people and your foot isn't firmly wedged in your gullet.

Please. Stop running your mouth and start loving people.
posted by dw at 2:22 PM on November 3, 2006 [4 favorites]

the Episcopalians even have an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.

That get's death threats nearly every day from these supposed Christians.
posted by tkchrist at 2:24 PM on November 3, 2006

You know (she says, doging the erudite arguments about religion and morality going on) the meth thing makes that YouTube clip linked earlier, and the way Haggard seems a raving nutter, totally make sense. I thought he looked wired...
posted by jokeefe at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2006

Sounds like we need a CHRISTAIN CAGE MATCH!
posted by tkchrist at 2:26 PM on November 3, 2006

Just once, just once, I'd like to see a discussion about Christianity that doesn't end up with people tossing Biblical quotes around.

I'd like to see a discussion of genetics that doesn't end up with people talking about anything Mendel researched.

Or a discussion of Newtonian physics that doesn't end up mention Principa.

Sorry, but if you want a discussion of Christianity, you have to deal with the Bible.

This thread is going to keep marching towards 600, isn't it?
posted by dw at 2:30 PM on November 3, 2006

"Sounds like we need a CHRISTAIN CAGE MATCH!"

Two men enter, one man leaves, one man raptured.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:31 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

dw: OK, see, in saying what you're saying, you are implying that homosexual == pedophile.

Bullshit. She implied nothing of the sort.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:33 PM on November 3, 2006

Yea, sorry dw; you're making that jump all on your own.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:35 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Pastabagel: It's addict mentality. They know they shouldn't do it, but they can't stop themselves, like the drunk who can't say no to the next drink. Weak, pathetic losers, just like their congregations - soft, comfy, middle-class weakness. Unable to sacrifice, unable to deny themselves even when it's in their best interest, unable to resist their appetites.

That's why you evangelicals need such a literal rules-based religion, because you're too weak willed to do it youselves. But don't project that onto the rest of the country. I can control my appetites, most people can. We can control our drinking, our eating, etc.

...We don't need magic when we have self control and compassion.

That where American chruches went wrong - you took love thy neighbor to mean that you should keep blacks and gays and jews and catholics out of your neighborhoods. Love thy neighbor is the only part of the Bible that any christian should take to heart, because that is the point that jesus hammered home time after time.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better. That's the NT for you. Not rules about who can touch a penis or under what conditions women are allow3ed to have sex. If you think the Bible is a guide to daily living, I'm sorry, you are in all scientific sense of the word, a moron. Your IQ is low. You missed the point.

I'm sorry I pasted almost this entire rant, but I'm just so dumbfounded by it that I don't want to edit out any good parts.

I just have never heard "compassion" and "love" preached with such utter contempt and self-righteousness before, except by those you claim to be "morons."

It astounds me that someone's views, which on the surface appear to match my own, can be so repugnant to me in the essentials.

Love everyone, your enemy, the weak, the diseased, the whores, everybody. Love them because you are no better.

Except for the born-again fundamentalists, because

If you had to accept Christ to stop your drinking, drugging, gambling, wife-beating, whatever, then you will always be morally and spiritually inferior to those of us who managed never to have those problems in the first place, or quit on our on resolve.

...because...

Addiction is a test.

Oh please. OH PLEASE. OH PLEASE. This is as much an unsubstantiated load of crap as "Sin is whatever God says it is." Apparently, addiction is whatever Pastabagel says it is. I say this respectfully, but your statements, despite being well-intentioned and purporting to promote compassion, are among the most uncompassionate and insulting I have ever read.

Footnote: I am agnostic, I've been passionately pro-gay rights ever since I saw Pedro Zamora marry his partner on the Real World: San Francisco when I was nine, and I feel a guilty mix of pity and schadenfreude for our friend Pastor Haggard.
posted by granted at 2:37 PM on November 3, 2006

And I've never done meth, so someone explains something to me. I've heard it makes you feel very sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine. I've also heard, in this thread, that it makes your pecker shrivel up to the size of a walnut. So what gives?

It makes you feel sexy and horny and like an unstoppable sex machine, and also allows you to have erections that last for hours without, in the end, impairing your ability to orgasm.

...so I've heard.
posted by jokeefe at 2:38 PM on November 3, 2006

fourcheesemac: your last comment is a perfect crystallization of why I find most evolved modern leftist secular humanist or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself as tiresome and scary as most fundies. Congratulations and welcome to my pay-no-mind list.
posted by jonmc at 2:39 PM on November 3, 2006

Same back atcha, jon. Kiss my ass. I'm proud to be ignored by people who say things like "secular humanist." Yecch.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:43 PM on November 3, 2006

Bullshit. She implied nothing of the sort.

How about this?

Replace "homosexuality" with pedophilia and see how that reads.

You don't put those two words together in this way on here, because it's going to get a visceral explosion on MeFi.

You'd be better off putting a gas can next to bonfire and not expecting anything to happen. Or thinking that a dinner party featuring Ann Coulter and Michael Moore is going to be a quiet, polite affair.
posted by dw at 2:45 PM on November 3, 2006

fourcheesemac: your last comment is a perfect crystallization of why I find most evolved modern leftist secular humanist or whatever the fuck you want to call yourself as tiresome and scary as most fundies. Congratulations and welcome to my pay-no-mind list.

Just what did he say that's so scary? Tiresome maybe, but only because the continual persistence of religious folks decrying reason makes us secular humanists repeat the same truths ad nauseum.
posted by SBMike at 2:45 PM on November 3, 2006

Appealing to authority really isn't persuasive, no matter who you think that authority is or what they're saying.

While this is the heart of atheistic belief, you'll have a hard time getting theists to agree.
posted by Llama-Lime at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2006

Because I am not a "secular humanist." I'm a scientific atheist.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:47 PM on November 3, 2006

Which Circle of Hell is this?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:51 PM on November 3, 2006

I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL.

I suppose if one is in the "once born again, forever born again" camp, well ... I'm perfectly fine! Nice! (Not to trivialise at all, konolia; I can appreciate and empathise with your concern. However, I don't think you're going to get anywhere with your message here.)

Now, enough with the konolia bashing. No one's going to change anyone else's opinions on the matter. Yes, I find some of her statements offensive. But it's detracting away from the Ted Haggard bashing.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006

Welcome to my list, fourcheesemac.

MY GROCERY LIST!
posted by gigawhat? at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

Which Circle of Hell is this?

It's the circle of hell where theological arguments are going on instead of evil gloating over the arrival of justice at the doorstep of a hatemonger. Call me shallow, but I'm here for the latter. At least today. Tomorrow I'll think about all this original sin and fall of man stuff.
posted by jokeefe at 2:53 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Hildegaard: Peeping, are you seriously suggesting that a woman who has had uterine cancer should never have sex again? Or, that women who for other physical reasons are unable to concieve should never have sex ever? Do you really believe this?

Of course I don't believe any of those things.

People often do not conceive when they perform a procreative kind of act, either because some physical defect prevents conception, or because it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, or because the woman has gone through menopause, or whatever. Such actions do not break the link between sex and babies. This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act, as happens when you are with a member of the same sex, or by yourself, and so on.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:54 PM on November 3, 2006

I'm proud to be ignored by people who say things like "secular humanist."

How old are you, 12? I'm sure in your mind I'm some holy roller abortion clinic bomber, even though I haven't been to church in roughly 20 years, am pro-choice, pro-gay rights etc. and loathe most fundy doctrine worse than you do.

This sentence is what I found offensive and scary:

Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person,

who died and left you boss?

As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers

my experiences with self-proclaimed born-agains has been exactly the opposite. most of the ones I've known have been people who were in desperate straits due to addiction, abuse or other crises, and while we've gotten into it pretty heavily over various issues most of them have been nothing but kind to me, so I'm disinclined to dismiss such a huge swath of people so blithely. Your professed view is no less simplistic than theirs.
posted by jonmc at 2:56 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Secular humanists" (so 1958) can be annoying, no doubt. But they aren't trying to push an agenda that will literally make it illegal for a minority population of the US to marry, to teach in schools, to make sure their spouse is taken care of if they die in an accident, that a generation of gay teens isn't terrorized, etc.

As others have mentioned, when a majority of Evangelicals actually spend as much time worried about the poor as they do about cock-sucking (Jesus, not surprisingly, had a lot to say about the former, no so much about the latter), I'll take them seriously. Until then, they are a cult trying to empower themselves through trampling on the rights of others.

But anyways, after 500 comments, this thread has yet to be Godwined. Let me remedy that--

Ya know, Nazi's have opinions. Jews have opinons. But the Jews are so darn whiny and shrill when we march them to the showers. No class at all.
posted by bardic at 2:58 PM on November 3, 2006

and I might add, no matter how drastically my lifestyle and beliefs have differed from hers, she's never told me 'kiss her ass.' that's why I will always defend her, at least somewhat.
posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh god, not the peeping_thomist sex and contraception thread all over again. No god, no.
posted by agregoli at 3:00 PM on November 3, 2006

"Secular humanists" (so 1958) can be annoying, no doubt. But they aren't trying to push an agenda that will literally make it illegal for a minority population of the US to marry, to teach in schools, to make sure their spouse is taken care of if they die in an accident, that a generation of gay teens isn't terrorized, etc.

bardic, I know. I was just looking for a quick catch-all to describe my frustration, which is why I added the 'whatever the fuck you call' at the end.
posted by jonmc at 3:01 PM on November 3, 2006

This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act

So you consider all sexual acts other than those that end with a husband ejaculating into a wife's vagina to be immoral, is that correct?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:02 PM on November 3, 2006

fourcheesemac: So, maybe you could be bothered to learn more about anatomy and physiology, and then you can show us where "natural law" is "imprinted" on the heart muscle of your average hominid. Funny, I've seen a few hearts in my time, and they had no writing on them at all.

Since this is addressed to me I suppose I should have a response. Here goes: I hope writing that was cathartic for you, because I can't imagine what other goals you might have had in mind in writing it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2006

bardic writes "But anyways, after 500 comments, this thread has yet to be Godwined. "

Well, I did implicitly compare defending Konolia to defending Julius Streicher.
posted by orthogonality at 3:10 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist is also known as tedious_Catholic.
posted by bardic at 3:11 PM on November 3, 2006

also, if you're an athiest, what do you care if somebody says you're going to hell? you don't believe in it anyway.

Look, konolia has read me describing my own drug use, drunkeness, fornication, bisexuality and a host of other things that probably have me booked on the express train to hell, but she's still never been anything but friendly to me. y'know why? because I've been decent to her.

I was just describing this thread to my wife (an avowed athiest) and she described what I'm trying to do as a kind of cognitive therapy for konolia, and attacking somebody (and believe me, I understand where the urge to rip into her comes from and I've taken other righty MeFites to task for it in emails before) but I don't think it does her or us any good.
posted by jonmc at 3:12 PM on November 3, 2006

Just as in life, I come in second yet again.

/weeps just like baby Jesus
posted by bardic at 3:14 PM on November 3, 2006

FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISM
posted by quonsar at 3:14 PM on November 3, 2006

I with jokeefe on this one. Less theology, more Rev. Ted! I'll get the ball rolling:

Rumor has it that the gay community in Colorado Springs has known about Rev. Ted for years and that he not only has had sex with gay prostitutes, but has also had a ten-year long affair with one of his male aides, and has come on inappropriately to many young staffers.
posted by maryh at 3:15 PM on November 3, 2006

your link is broken, maryh
posted by SBMike at 3:18 PM on November 3, 2006

People often do not conceive when they perform a procreative kind of act, either because some physical defect prevents conception, or because it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, or because the woman has gone through menopause, or whatever. Such actions do not break the link between sex and babies.

If you specifically choose to have sex when it isn't the fertile time of the cycle, because you don't want babies, haven't you intentionally broken the link between sex and babies? How about if you pull out before ejaculation?

It seems to me that you're putting more weight on this link between sex and babies than it can safely handle. If God didn't want us to enjoy sex, why didn't He simply make it so that we don't, or that we only have sex during estrus like the vast majority of the animal kingdom? A reasonable person who believed in God might well assume that God made sex pleasurable not just to encourage procreation, but to strengthen the bond between two people. This reasonable person might also assume that, if gay people are attracted to members of the same sex, God made them that way. What kind of cruel fiend would do that to someone, but prohibit him from acting upon it when it harms no one? That kind of God would make me welcome the abyss.

This is different from not conceiving where what you are doing is not a procreative kind of act, as happens when you are with a member of the same sex, or by yourself, and so on.

Do you actually believe that masturbation is a sin? If so, is it a serious enough sin that we should worry about it? Most of the people I know do much worse things. If it's not important, why is gay sex so important? What makes that so much more serious?
posted by me & my monkey at 3:20 PM on November 3, 2006

Armitage, I think Peeping_Thom's views on "sacred sex" are best illustrated via The Wicker Man or something.

As best as I can make out, his theory goes like this:

cock + vagina = sacred
cock + cock = unsacred
vagina + vagina = unsacred
cock + own hand = unsacred
vagina + own hand/dolphin vibrator = unsacred
posted by mijuta at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2006

agregoli, it's not my fault that people ask me questions that require talking about contraception!

Armitage_Shanks: So you consider all sexual acts other than those that end with a husband ejaculating into a wife's vagina to be immoral, is that correct?

Almost. In ethics a lot depends on what people are trying to do, in addition to what they actually do. If a husband and wife start having sex (which can include pretty much anything two people might ever want to do--there's nothing to be ashamed of between a husband and wife) and the husband comes before they get around to penetration, or while they are doing something other than penetration, or whatever, they haven't necessarily done anything wrong. But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:21 PM on November 3, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: Do you actually believe that masturbation is a sin? If so, is it a serious enough sin that we should worry about it? Most of the people I know do much worse things. If it's not important, why is gay sex so important? What makes that so much more serious?

Yes.

Yes.

Gay sex isn't so important.

It's not more serious.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:23 PM on November 3, 2006

why didn't He simply make it so that we don't...

No shit. What if we were like cats?

"The male cat's penis has spines which point backwards. Upon withdrawal of the penis, the spines rake the walls of the female's vagina. The female needs this stimulation for ovulation to begin."

So, it's not like there's not a natural system in place for making sex hurt like a motherfucker.

Oh, but I'm sure it has something to do with free will, resisting temptation, or some other bullshit about we hoo-mons are better than the animals... the tasty, tasty animals.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:27 PM on November 3, 2006

I care for two reasons. On a political level, these people want to enact legislation that tells me how and with whom I can live my life. On a visceral level, it's fucking rude. When a 5 year-old runs around peeing on people, it's funny because he doesn't know better. When an adult does it by screaming about damnation of all who don't believe in their skygod of choice, it's pathetic and annoying. If I happen to tell that person that they're a butt-head, I somehow become the "shrill, militant atheist" or whatever, but the babbling theist is held up for being so preciously "authentic" and "sincere" for holding up such strong, misguided beliefs.

Add to this the obvious hypocrisy of so many Christians. And throw in a pinch of ignorance -- I've read the Bible, and I'm prepared to discuss it on a rational basis. Many Christians I've met, and especially the shrieking-harpy ones, don't actually know much about their principle texts. That's just stupid.

I guess that's four reasons. Oh well.
posted by bardic at 3:28 PM on November 3, 2006

Masturbation is a sin. Perfect indictment of the whole lot of you Jesus freaks. Show me one human who has never committed this "sin." Show me one mammal, in fact. What was that about "natural law?" Who's really "unnatural" here?
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:29 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh, now I get it! Peeping_Thom is married to Kornholia!
posted by mijuta at 3:31 PM on November 3, 2006

*whines* Look, I came here for scandal, dammit. So gimme.

I was just describing this thread to my wife

Aw, I just got a warm glow reading that, Jon. (Did it take a while to get used to saying "my wife"?)
posted by jokeefe at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh, nice bigots are always the best ones.
posted by fourcheesemac at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006

But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Oh. My.

Completing the "act?" "Normal" way? Wrong?

You're starting sound more and more like Norman Bates with every post. Stop posting now. Go get therapy.

Seriously.
posted by tkchrist at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006

^^^

And don't tell me that this is Argument, and Scandal is down the hall and to the left, or something.
posted by jokeefe at 3:33 PM on November 3, 2006

But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Wow, you know, I would have thought god would have better things to think about. I mean, shit, you know, the god damned UNIVERSE and all. Nope, seems he's concerned with something probably sub-microscropic in size by comparsion to him and how they poke their appendages into each other. What a thoughtful god. Good thing our planet has so few problems that the lord can get down to these brass tacks!
posted by smallerdemon at 3:34 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

And how does masturbation rate against, say, cutting someone off in traffic? Or putting the milk jug back in the fridge even though it's practically empty? Or judging others?

Since masturbation is not criminalized, should homosexual behavior be decriminalized? If it should be decriminalized, why shouldn't the state recognize homosexual unions?

If a husband and wife start having sex (which can include pretty much anything two people might ever want to do--there's nothing to be ashamed of between a husband and wife) and the husband comes before they get around to penetration, or while they are doing something other than penetration, or whatever, they haven't necessarily done anything wrong. But if they deliberately avoid completing the act in the normal way, yeah, that's wrong.

Yikes, that's complicated. Having to think that through would probably make me lose my erection. Apparently, God wants us all to be lawyers. Good thing I'm a gay heathen.

So, let's say I'm being fellated by my wife, and it feels so good that I let myself come. I've deliberately avoided intercourse, although I originally planned for some missionary action. Right or wrong?
posted by me & my monkey at 3:35 PM on November 3, 2006

I can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?

DAMN YOU THEOLOGY, DAMN YOU!
posted by bardic at 3:35 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Sorry, but if you want a discussion of Christianity, you have to deal with the Bible.

Why does Christianity rear its ugly head whenever there is a discussion of justice and what is right and what is wrong?
posted by stirfry at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2006

(Because my sperms are totally Christian. They told me so.)
posted by bardic at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2006

can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?

Sure you can. How flexible is she?
posted by tkchrist at 3:37 PM on November 3, 2006

On a political level, these people want to enact legislation that tells me how and with whom I can live my life. On a visceral level, it's fucking rude.

Understood. But when confronted with konolia, I can do one of two things: treat as a representation of an amorphous group or I can treat as the individual she is, and use the fact that we generally like eachother as a wedge to maybe get her to think a bit. Futile, maybe, but I'd rather do that than give up.

Masturbation is a sin. Perfect indictment of the whole lot of you Jesus freaks. Show me one human who has never committed this "sin."

show any human being anywhere who hasn't done something that by any moral standard, secular or religious, that wouldn't be considered wrong or sinful or evil or whatever word you want to use. I'm not religious, but I definitely understand what drives people to be 'born again.'
posted by jonmc at 3:37 PM on November 3, 2006

bardic writes "I can't give my nice Christian wife a facial?"

Emphatially No.

ericb writes "Women must not wear gold or pearls (1 Timothy 2:9)."
posted by orthogonality at 3:38 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

Show me one human who has never committed this "sin." Show me one mammal, in fact.

dolphins? ... porcupines? ... giraffes? ... cattle? ... horses?

there are certain mechanics involved that aren't exactly convenient for all mammals here ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:39 PM on November 3, 2006

Since masturbation is not criminalized...

Oh... don't be so sure of that.
posted by smallerdemon at 3:40 PM on November 3, 2006

Fixed link. (Iknow, disappointing lack of Borat connection.)
posted by maryh at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2006

I'm not religious, but I definitely understand what drives people to be 'born again.'

Yep. Fear, stupidity, shame, guilt, and greed.

You know. The "higher" emotions.
posted by tkchrist at 3:41 PM on November 3, 2006

I DO NOT WANT ANYONE READING THIS THREAD TO GO TO HELL.

Thanks anyway, but if it's good enough for Gandhi, it's good enough for me.
posted by homunculus at 3:42 PM on November 3, 2006

Let's make 666 comments for this thread. Then go spill some seed.
posted by SBMike at 3:42 PM on November 3, 2006

Rumor has it that the gay community in Colorado Springs has known about Rev. Ted for years and that he not only has had sex with gay prostitutes, but has also had a ten-year long affair with one of his male aides, and has come on inappropriately to many young staffers.

maryh: I have fixed your linkage.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh, but I'm sure it has something to do with free will, resisting temptation, or some other bullshit about we hoo-mons are better than the animals...

I would be ok with that, actually. But the thing is, people like konolia are trying to prevent me from exercising my free will, through the enforcement power of the state. She has never answered that, although I've asked it repeatedly, here and in other threads. But she seems perfectly ok conflating God's law with man's law.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh ... well ... you beat me to it. Good work!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:43 PM on November 3, 2006

dolphins?

Masturbation, maybe not (I don't hang with dolphins, so I'm not), but you did see that Ricky Gervais video, right?

"He [points with pointer] is fucking him [points with pointer] in the head."
posted by smallerdemon at 3:44 PM on November 3, 2006

I recommended that konolia read Stealing Jesus. I recommend that everyone else read Donna Minkowitz's Ferocious Romance, her treatise on her undercover adventures in the religious right. She quotes Al Capp aproppiately, "We has met the enemy, and they is us!"

(if it makes you all feel any better, as I type this I'm guzzling BUd and listenming to Jethro Tull's "Teacher")
posted by jonmc at 3:45 PM on November 3, 2006

Yep. Fear, stupidity, shame, guilt, and greed.

Is guilt always such a bad thing, tkchrist? sometimes guilt is deserved.
posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on November 3, 2006

dolphins? ... porcupines?

Where there's a will, there's a way.

I stopped Googling after porcupine, for reasons I won't bother going into. Consider yourself warned.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:50 PM on November 3, 2006

"Emphatially No."

lol

Can I give her a phatial, then?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:57 PM on November 3, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

Fine in itself, though in the particular case it depends on whether you have legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

me_&_my_monkey: And how does masturbation rate against, say, cutting someone off in traffic?

More serious, though cutting someone off in traffic is more serious than most people probably think. (It's dangerous, for one thing.)

Or putting the milk jug back in the fridge even though it's practically empty?

More serious.

Or judging others?

Depends on how serious the judging is, but they're both serious.

me_&_my_monkey: Since masturbation is not criminalized, should homosexual behavior be decriminalized?

Modern nation-states aren't in a position to offer their citizens moral education, so I'd go for decriminalization.

If it should be decriminalized, why shouldn't the state recognize homosexual unions?

The state is interested in marriage because of children. I can't get over the sex/children link.

me_&_my_monkey: Yikes, that's complicated.

No it's not. Maybe it sounds complicated, but it's not.

me_&_my_monkey: So, let's say I'm being fellated by my wife, and it feels so good that I let myself come. I've deliberately avoided intercourse, although I originally planned for some missionary action. Right or wrong?

Wrong if it was deliberate, but was it? When two young people are first married, I could see this sort of thing happening by accident a few times before the couple figures out how their bodies work together, and it wouldn't be deliberate, or not very deliberate. But if you're talking about a mature married couple who know exactly what they're doing, it would be more deliberate and would be more wrong. A lot depends on what they were trying to do.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:58 PM on November 3, 2006

people like konolia are trying to prevent me from exercising my free will, through the enforcement power of the state

POOR BABY! IS WIDDLE POOKIE MOO-MOO FEELING OPPRESSED? PEOPLE HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT YOU DO OR THEY ARE OPPRESSING WIDDLE OLD YOU? AAAAWWWWWW! CAN'T ACHEIVE A BAC OF 4.0 AND OPERATE A ROAD GRADER ON THE FREEWAY? THE STATE IS OPPRESSING YOU! CAN'T DOUBLE PARK IN THE HOSPITAL ZONE? MEDICAL FASCISTS ARE RUINING YOUR LIFE! ARE PEOPLE TSK-TSKING YOUR AVID WEENIE-GOBBLING? HOW DARE THEY?!?!?!?!
posted by quonsar at 4:04 PM on November 3, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: So, again - rhythm method, right or wrong?

Fine in itself, though in the particular case it depends on whether you have legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

Please, list some of these legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy that are consistent with your version of morality. What are they?
posted by SBMike at 4:05 PM on November 3, 2006

I think Thomist's opinion can be summed up in song...

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

(Look, a Monty Python quote HAD to happen here, I'm just the first to admit it. And to do it. And I'm proud of it. AND I'D DO IT AGAIN! MUAHA! HAHAHAHA!)
posted by smallerdemon at 4:06 PM on November 3, 2006

"I can't get over the sex/children link."

Yeah, Foley either.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:07 PM on November 3, 2006

Metafilter: Tsk-tsking your avid weenie-gobbling since sometime in 1999.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:08 PM on November 3, 2006

Because marriage improves peoples' sex lives.

Now I'm thinking you must be a priest peeping_Thomist, because you've obviously never been married.
posted by bardic at 4:09 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "These kinds of reflections lead me to reject contraception (which seek to deliver sex without babies) as well as many of the new reproductive technologies (which seek to deliver babies without sex). They also lead me to reject sexual activity by those who have not appropriately prepared themselves to receive the gift of new human life."

Do you think that people who know they are sterile should refrain from having sex?
posted by clevershark at 4:11 PM on November 3, 2006

SBMike, there's no way to talk about it in the abstract; reasons are always in particular contexts. The basic idea is that you don't use natural family planning to avoid pregnancy for trivial reasons, but figuring out what reasons are trivial and which ones aren't can only be done by looking at all the relevant circumstances. What would be a trivial reason for one couple in one situation could be a legitimate reason for another couple in another situation.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:12 PM on November 3, 2006

Remember when quonsar used to be funny?
posted by bardic at 4:12 PM on November 3, 2006 [5 favorites]

peeping_thomist, it would appear that you hold the actual physical destination and properties of the sperm to a higher level of respect than the interaction of husband and wife in the context of marriage

isn't this a form of idolatry? ... what is the difference between your insistence that all sperm must somehow have a vagina as destination (fertile or not) and a 9th century bc'ians conviction that the fields must be quickened by having people fuck in the fields on may day? ... aren't you in fact putting the function and the purpose of male genitalia and what they produce above what either of the two people want or have?

last of all, what's your biblical justification for this?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:13 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

bardic, I've been married longer than most people posting to mefi have been alive.

clevershark, no, I don't think that. Even if the sterility was the result of deliberate mutilation, as with a vasectomy, there need not be anything wrong with married people having sex even though they are sterile.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:16 PM on November 3, 2006

What the fuck is wrong with quonsar? Or is he always like that?
posted by c13 at 4:18 PM on November 3, 2006

Is guilt always such a bad thing, tkchrist? sometimes guilt is deserved.

Bad? Good? Irrelevant. We ALL feel guilt and shame and fear. They simply ARE.

That most people are driven through those emotions to conclude an invisible sky god will bless them with his magic sprinkles and make all that pain go away is what is absurd.

For it is in the failing to meet the invisible gods imposible contradictory metrics (as relayed by his other followers) that entrenches these feelings. Thus cerrating the environment that rendered the believer emotionally crippled in the first place. Round and round we go.

Then you add stupid to the mix. And you get... this thread.
posted by tkchrist at 4:19 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

pyramid_termite, it only seems that way because I haven't had the chance to launch into a paean to married love.

aren't you in fact putting the function and the purpose of male genitalia and what they produce above what either of the two people want or have?

No. I'm simply saying that there are contraints on how we can legitimately use our sexual powers, not that people don't matter as much as their genitals.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:20 PM on November 3, 2006

Fine in itself, though in the particular case it depends on whether you have legitimate reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

What would be a legitimate reason, that could possibly conform to what you stated earlier?

More serious, though cutting someone off in traffic is more serious than most people probably think. (It's dangerous, for one thing.)

Let me get this straight. An act that, at worst, harms no one but the actor, and doesn't even appear to do that, is more serious than another act that could cause the death of an innocent person. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of moral calculus you're following, there, and I don't want to.

The state is interested in marriage because of children. I can't get over the sex/children link.

I submit to you that this is a problem that exists in your head, rather than in the world outside your head. Obviously, we allow barren and impotent people to get married. We allow people to remain married after menopause. It seems to me that there are other reasons for the state and society to encourage marriage beyond procreation.

Wrong if it was deliberate, but was it?

In the hypothetical, I clearly stated that I originally intended to have intercourse, but changed course, so to speak. Presumably, then, that's wrong, wrong, wrong. So let me pose a simpler hypothetical. If I have sex with my wife, whether I have intercourse or not, but I have no desire to procreate as a result of that specific sex act, is that right or wrong?

It seems to me that for many Christians, sex is all about fertility, and nothing about love. What a bleak, ugly, animalistic way to go through life. I would appreciate not having that inflicted on the rest of us, thank you very much.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:21 PM on November 3, 2006

good post on this on yglesias' blog.
posted by delmoi at 4:21 PM on November 3, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: I have no desire to procreate as a result of that specific sex act, is that right or wrong?

WTF? I see my wife's shapely ass and want to fuck her and _do_ fuck her, to our mutual satisfaction, without a thought to whether or not it will result in pregnancy. Hooray for us! I'm not saying people need to be constantly thinking about or hoping for babies!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:25 PM on November 3, 2006

I'm simply saying that there are contraints

but many of the constraints you seem to support aren't universally recognized among christians, are they?

again, what is your biblical justification for your view that married sex has to involve "normal" intercourse?
posted by pyramid termite at 4:26 PM on November 3, 2006

Thomist, quick, man going down on his wife? OK or no?

No babies, but no sperm wasted.
posted by SBMike at 4:26 PM on November 3, 2006

"On a political level, these people want to enact legislation that tells me how and with whom I can live my life."

And that is all I really give a shit about. You can crawl on your knees and handle snakes in your little church 7 days a week for all I care, just allow those of us who have evolved into rational beings enjoy living in the 21st century.
Seriously, that's all it takes to make us grumpy atheistic naysayers go away and leave you alone, because we really don't care what you do, who you marry, or what you do with your genitals.
And by the way, pastor Ted could totally win me over by stepping up and being a man and admitting who he is, and showing his flock that that doesn't make him evil, or of the devil. Just a man. That I can respect. But look at that ridiculous smile on his face in that clip where he digs himself in deeper over the meth use. I see no contrition, no accountability.
posted by 2sheets at 4:36 PM on November 3, 2006

I'm not saying people need to be constantly thinking about or hoping for babies!

Oh. Well that's a relief! Whew.

"Norman! Norman, come up here and luffa my stretch marks! Your not down there thinking about wringing your weasile are you? Whipping your winkle! Are you? NORMAN! Answer your mother"

"(SIGH) No mother... golly, somebody has to run the motel, Mother."
posted by tkchrist at 4:38 PM on November 3, 2006

I feel sad for all these people that have such huge issues with sex that they feel the need to repress it, both in themselves and in others.

So much nonsense about masturbation, and sex outside of marriage, and gay sex, and blah-de-blah-de-blah.

So misguided. I think that it is likely that they are all going to end up in Hell. I certainly hope that they do not, but unless they get right with their own lives, and stop addressing the motes in others' eyes while tripping over their planks, I imagine they're going to be punished.

The Sacred and the Profane are relative, and in some of our cases, indistinguishable. I'm as holy as you please. I'm also a sinner, whatever that means. YMMV.

She really believes this stuff and as such...

You know who else really believed stuff?




oh, you know what's coming.










Hitler. yes, Hitler.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:02 PM on November 3, 2006

knettergek, allemaal.


(is this comment 666 already ?)
posted by Substrata at 5:05 PM on November 3, 2006

jonmc: "She quotes Al Capp aproppiately, "We has met the enemy, and they is us!""

Actually, that's not appropriate at all. Because that quote is from Pogo.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:09 PM on November 3, 2006

me_and_my_monkey: people like konolia are trying to prevent me from exercising my free will, through the enforcement power of the state

Quonsar: POOR BABY! IS WIDDLE POOKIE MOO-MOO FEELING OPPRESSED? PEOPLE HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT YOU DO OR THEY ARE OPPRESSING WIDDLE OLD YOU? AAAAWWWWWW! CAN'T ACHEIVE A BAC OF 4.0 AND OPERATE A ROAD GRADER ON THE FREEWAY? THE STATE IS OPPRESSING YOU! CAN'T DOUBLE PARK IN THE HOSPITAL ZONE? MEDICAL FASCISTS ARE RUINING YOUR LIFE! ARE PEOPLE TSK-TSKING YOUR AVID WEENIE-GOBBLING? HOW DARE THEY?!?!?!?!

Wow Quonsar, nice try at trying to turn someone's legitimate complaining about lack of basic civil rights into trivial bullshit.

Maybe you take a lot of your basic rights for granted, but open your fucking eyes and get a bit of perspective on the reality of the situation. As a queer person in this country, you can:

* be fired for your sexual identity
* be evicted for your sexual identity
* be prosecuted for engaging in same-sex activity
* be denied the right to marry your partner
* be denied the right to adopt
* be denied medical visitation rights if your partner is in the hospital
* be denied the right to your partner's inheritance if your partner passes away
* be denied the right to attend your partner's own funeral

It's a bit different than whining about not being able to double-park, asshole.
posted by mijuta at 5:16 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

I was raised by Seventh-Day Adventists (who have some interesting ideas about Catholics), and I learned a great deal about the Bible before rejecting it as completely absurd. We're animals, it's as plain as the nose on your face. We've got fantastic brains, but those brains are, much like computers, prone to infection by infectious though patterns. The major religions are like organisms, they have one goal: to survive, to spread, and to eliminate competing organisms. Humans are just cells in these organisms. Some of the cells are dumb erythrocytes, some are crucial neurons, but all are mere cogs in the machine.

The idea that the most average people have such a huge capacity for original thought and yet end up wasting so much on absurd religious practices really makes me want to weep.
posted by mullingitover at 5:20 PM on November 3, 2006

pyramid_termite: many of the constraints you seem to support aren't universally recognized among christians, are they?

True. That's because many Christians have broken away from the Church Christ founded, and have been playing at setting up their own churches, like Pastor Ted did.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:26 PM on November 3, 2006

WTF? I see my wife's shapely ass and want to fuck her and _do_ fuck her, to our mutual satisfaction, without a thought to whether or not it will result in pregnancy.

And you know, peeping_Thomist--deep down in your innermost, private, secret thoughts--that's exactly what a monkey would say.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:31 PM on November 3, 2006

weapons-grade-pandemonium, you seem to have me confused with someone who doesn't acknowledge that he is an animal. We're rational animals, but we're animals.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:39 PM on November 3, 2006

If anyone's still reading this and wants some really sweet-ass schadenfreude, watch him "debate" Richard Dawkins on youtube.

Dawkins was at the University of Virginia today at the tail end of his North American book tour. In the course of answering a question about empirical evidence for the benefit of religion he said something like, "I don't think it's helpful to proceed by totting up the good religious people, like Jesus and Gandhi and Martin Luther King, against the bad ones, like [pause] the Crusaders or[longer pause] pastor Ted Haggard...". Which of course brought the house down.
posted by Creosote at 5:39 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "True. That's because many Christians have broken away from the Church Christ founded, and have been playing at setting up their own churches, like Pastor Ted did."

Ah yes, the secret pitfall of not worshipping correctly. Strangely, the founders of these breakaway churches will undoubtedly claim they did so under the direct orders of God. Jesus is such a prankster.

This reminds me of a This American Life show about some Mormon fundies who started their own sect. God told them all that having multiple wives was OK, but gave conflicting messages about having sex with multiple wives simultaneously. Their group eventually collapsed over this issue.
posted by mullingitover at 5:42 PM on November 3, 2006

That's because many Christians have broken away from the Church Christ founded

and why have they done so? ... well, one reason is that when one asks that church or its defenders what their biblical justification is for a certain doctrine, one gets sheer evasion and/or no answer at all

once again, what is your biblical justification for your view that married sex has to involve "normal" intercourse?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:46 PM on November 3, 2006

What church, pray tell, did Jesus found? Certainly not Christianity -- that was Paul's doing.

I'm a big fan of the historical Jesus. I just don't happen to see any connection between him and any church that call itself a Christian one today.
posted by bardic at 5:49 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

*church that calls
posted by bardic at 5:52 PM on November 3, 2006

pyramid_termite, I'm pretty sure you and I don't agree about what sort of thing a "biblical justification" is.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:55 PM on November 3, 2006

If anyone hasn't read the Harpers article about the New Life church, y'all really should.

New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, “like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.” They like the stimulation of a new brand. “Have you ever switched your toothpaste brand, just for the fun of it?” Pastor Ted asks. Admit it, he insists. All the way home, you felt a “secret little thrill,” as excited questions ran through your mind: “Will it make my teeth whiter? My breath fresher?” This is the sensation Ted wants pastors to bring to the Christian experience. He believes it is time “to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry.”

Seems like Pastor Ted's a fan of secret little rebellions.

There's also this quote:

The life of the gay man, in the evangelical imagination, seems to be an endless succession of orgasms, interrupted only by jocular episodes of male bonhomie. The gay man promises Christian men a guilt-free existence, the garden before Eve. As such, he is not just tempting but temptation embodied; “the Enemy,” to whom [an evangelical interviewee] often refers.

The New Life members also believe that if you go to cities, the demons that possess the queer, the left, the atheist, might jump on them and take them over, too, which is why they have retreated into their protected suburbia in Colorado Springs, avoiding even the downtown there. It's jawdropping.
posted by jokeefe at 5:59 PM on November 3, 2006

Those demons are the best ones.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:07 PM on November 3, 2006

The life of the gay man, in the evangelical imagination, seems to be an endless succession of orgasms, interrupted only by jocular episodes of male bonhomie.

Well, truthfully. that's my life in a nutshell.

OK, gotta run, the next succession is calling.
posted by BoringPostcards at 6:07 PM on November 3, 2006

An endless succession of oragami? Think about the trees, man! Why do the gays hate Mother Earth?!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:15 PM on November 3, 2006

The formatting of Harper's website is crap!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:19 PM on November 3, 2006

The New Life members also believe that if you go to cities, the demons that possess the queer, the left, the atheist, might jump on them and take them over, too, which is why they have retreated into their protected suburbia in Colorado Springs, avoiding even the downtown there. It's jawdropping.

The smallerdemon lives in San Francisco. ;) I WILL JUMP UPON THEE AND POSSESS THEE AND TAKE THEE OVER! PLEASE COME VISIT OUR CITY!

(Aw... I'm not even queer! I'm totally a one woman man for the last 14 1/2 years. I will say that our sexual practices, however, do not, uh, have anything to do with this wacky shit that Thomist seems to be going on about.)
posted by smallerdemon at 6:21 PM on November 3, 2006

pyramid_termite, I'm pretty sure you and I don't agree about what sort of thing a "biblical justification" is.

i'm very sure that if st peter only got 3 chances to tell the truth that it would be rather foolish of me to give you more

if you're not willing to give your reasoning, you may as well be trolling for all the effect you're having ... and considering that the subject of this thread is not birth control or what is sexually moral within a marriage, but a certain preacher's downfall by involvement with some rather sleazy things, i strongly suspect you are trolling
posted by pyramid termite at 6:25 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia writes "Replace 'homosexuality' with pedophilia and see how that reads. "

You are a fucking moron.

konolia writes "If you don't claim God as your authority figure by all means do as you will. You can do nothing else. But Ted has made a profession of following God, therefore he will believe as I do that certain actions are sin against a holy God. If these accusations do turn out to be true I will be truly flabbergasted."

You are a deliberately obtuse fucking moron. Do you honestly think that because someone professes a belief, then therefore every single fucking action of their lives is in accordance with that belief?

Give me a fucking break, and take your fucking bigotry elsewhere, you fucking moron.

konolia writes "Sin is what God says it is. Period."

You're a fucking retarded moron. I'd like to remind you of something I wrote, Konolia: God is Love.

I just got home from work, and boy has this thread blown up.

I will respond properly later, but for now I have one, just one, question:

Why is it that me fucking my boyfriend in the ass is more important to you people (by which I mean fundamentalists) than the rapes that happen every day, the people who are starving all over the world, war, murder, or even just the lonely person living on your street who never seems to have any friends come over to say hi?

Why is it that my love life is so important to you? Moreover, why is a physical act such a major issue for you?

God is love. When you love someone, whether that person is your mother, father, sister, brother, niece, nephew, boyfriend, girlfriend, or seventh cousin twice removed on your father's side,-- that is God.

When you look up at the sky and realize you are both a unique and singular being, and a tiny mote in an unimaginable cosmos, and you really think about all that-- that is God.

When you hold someone in your arms, and you cradle them, and you say "I love you," God doesn't care if you're a boy or a girl, and God doesn't care if the person you're holding is a boy or a girl. Love is what matters. Caring. Treating your fellow human beings with an ounce of decency-- that's God.

God is not some heavenly referee who has memorised all the rules, and is jotting down in His scorebook whether you obeyed them or not. God is love. God wants you to look at your fellow human beings and think "Hey, you're a person too. You're just like me. You live, you love, you laugh, you cry. We're the same. Let's get through this together."

It was explained to me some years ago that for Jews, heaven and hell are the same thing: you gaze upon the face of God for eternity. For some, this is a glorious thing; you get to bask in the divine radiance for eternity. For the 'sinners,' though, this is painful, because they are forced to realize how good good can be, and how far they fell short.

My boyfriend and I were discussing this tonight, and I suggested to him my idea of hell: a place where everyone who has done wrong to another person has to truly learn and understand how their actions harmed another. With that in mind, konolia (and your ilk), I sincerely hope that you go to hell. I hope that when you die, you are forced to understand the pain and misery and heartache that your cruelty has inflicted on the world.

God is love. There simply is no way that God could frown on love, on caring, on putting someone else's needs before one's own. Gender is irrelevant, love is all.

Sister Sledge got it right, kids: we are family. Every human being is inextricably linked to every other human being. Let's start acting like it.

God is love.


peeping_Thomist writes "I think Scripture and Tradition (not to mention reason itself!) clearly teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is wrong."

Beg pardon? Can you actually show that, without ever resorting to any Biblical references whatsoever?

Didn't think so.

Another fucking moron.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:30 PM on November 3, 2006 [7 favorites]

re: konolia "I too think she's basically a good person trapped in a hateful religion. But she's also a grown adult, well past the age of responsibility, and it is her own responsibility to look past the fairy tales and realize what her religion is wanting to impose upon the real world."

I agree. I used to be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. She seemed like a nice person caught up in an unfortunate belief system.

But this homosexual=pedophile spew? Fuck it. Konolia, you're on my shitlist.

I hope you're wise enough to realize the collective intelligence and wisdom to be found in MeFi, and take to heart this advice: You are limited by your blind faith. You need to smarten up, girl, and start using your own brain for a change. I know you're smart enough to realize that you fucked the pooch with your idiot comment about pedophilia and I hope you're smart enough to realize that it's your blind faith that caused you to humiliate yourself so badly.

I'm certain you consider it blasphemy for me to say this, but you are better than your church. Do yourself the self-honour of holding yourself to a better religious standard.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:40 PM on November 3, 2006

Ok, back to the gloating.

Ted Haggard. Ha! I bet he looks Haggard after all the meth and rough stud-sex! HA HA! HA. Ha. haha. ha. heh.

Ahem. Right then, carry on with your regularly-scheduled thread.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:40 PM on November 3, 2006

Can you actually show that, without ever resorting to any Biblical references whatsoever?


he can't even do it WITH biblical references ... i asked him 3 times
posted by pyramid termite at 6:43 PM on November 3, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: You are a fucking moron.[...] You are a deliberately obtuse fucking moron. [...] take your fucking bigotry elsewhere, you fucking moron. [...] You're a fucking retarded moron. [...] Love is what matters. Caring. Treating your fellow human beings with an ounce of decency [...] I sincerely hope that you go to hell. [...] Another fucking moron.

If you believe love is what matters, why do you talk to people this way?

dirtynumbangelboy: Why is it that me fucking my boyfriend in the ass is more important to you people (by which I mean fundamentalists) than the rapes that happen every day, the people who are starving all over the world, war, murder, or even just the lonely person living on your street who never seems to have any friends come over to say hi?

What makes you think it is more important, or even very important to us? As I said earlier, gay sex strikes me as on par with masturbation and other sexual sins. It's bad, yes, but there are many, many worse things. Where did you get the idea that those of us who accept traditional sexual morality think that what you do with your boyfriend is more important or worse than the other things you mention?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:44 PM on November 3, 2006

If anyone hasn't read the Harpers article about the New Life church, y'all really should.

Jeff Sharlet (the author) reposted it to his blog today, with some additional thoughts:

I'm re-posting my original Harper's piece below not because I think I got the story right -- if Jones' story is true, I missed it by a mile -- but because I hope it'll help the journalists now on the job get the story right by not making the mistake I did. The downfall of Ted Haggard is not just another tale of hypocrisy, it's a parable of the paradoxes at the heart of American fundamentalism. I wrote about the role of sex in Ted's theology, but removed it from the final edit of the story.... I made the mistake of viewing Ted's sex and his religion of free market economics as separate spheres. The truth, I suspect, is that they're intimately bound in a worldview of "order," one to which it turns out even Ted cannot conform.

Yep.
posted by dw at 6:59 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping, because that's all we hear and see--we don't see anyone putting their energy into feeding the poor or housing the homeless or anything--this crowd's time and energy is spent hating us. In those weekly meetings with Bush, did Haggard speak of expanding social programs? Of helping those whose lives were ruined in Katrina or Iraq? No. He's on record as being a free-market whatever, and a warmonger. Does Dobson or Robertson or Haggard or Falwell make Bush raise taxes to feed people? No. They make sure Plan B doesn't get released for years, and make sure all our overseas aid has abstinence rules attached. They make sure there's funding for their churches and orgs, not all orgs that help people. They push Bush and Congress to propose a Federal Amendment to make me and mine second-class citizens--they do the same on the state level.

This guy had the ear of the WH and spent his time talking about us instead of on Jesus things. This same guy is a closetcase and meth freak. We judge them on their actions. They do harm to us daily, and i can't wait for the day that people can live without these "leaders".
posted by amberglow at 6:59 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

He also had the ear of the entire media and did not ever use it to spread Jesus' teachings or words---he used it to make himself an even bigger player in politics. Render unto Caesar.
posted by amberglow at 7:00 PM on November 3, 2006

I can't get over the sex/children link.

Well, that explains a lot about the Catholic church.

Oh come on, someone had to say it.

And thumbs up, dirtynumbangelboy. It's ironic that the life of Jesus is all about bonding with the groups of people society was uncomfortable with, the ones society shunned, about breaking the rules in favour of loving others and not standing in judgement of them, and this rigid, judgmental, pleasure-hating faith is what the "christian" church has become. Some quality time thinking about what Jesus really did and said, rather than what Paul did and said (or what later monks opted to put into Paul's mouth centuries later), makes it fairly clear that he wouldn't be too pleased with the fundies. I mean, what did Jesus get really, really angry about? People charging interest. The captialists. I don't really get how these so-called devout Christians with their fingers in every financial pie fail to hear that message.

But then, their own scripture predicts that the self-appointed righteous will be false in the end, doesn't it.

There is definitely a weird arrogance in the devout to tell us what is (what is sin, what is truth, what is hell) rather than hedging it all by saying "this is what we believe". I suspect this is privilege speaking.
posted by Hildegarde at 7:21 PM on November 3, 2006

dw writes "The return of Gnosticism is less about 'look how the church screwed up' and more about 'look at the True Knowledge given me!' Ditto Celestine Prophecy. Or Da Vinci Code. And you see that in the New Age movement, or the Kabaalah. In fact, you even see it in this new Dawkinsite strain of atheism. We are perfect. It's everyone else who is delusional."

Hmm, we must be moving in some different circles. The Gnostics & Kabbalists that I know don't have much to say about 'me', and a whole lot to ask about 'me', and 'why', and so forth.

peeping_Thomist writes "This is all too compressed, of course, but there's a freaking huge literature on this stuff if you're interested in it. You might want to look at Karol Wojtyla's _Theology of the Body_, or at a popularized summary of Wojtyla's thought."

...sorry? You make an appeal to 'reason alone', and then expect us to believe that Karol Wojtyla--known, prior to his death, as Pope John Paul II, good try at leaving that bit out--used pure reason? That he wasn't writing books promulgating his theological views? If anyone here believes that, I have a bridge for sale..

fourcheesemac writes "Believers owe the rest of us a simple demonstration of the proof of the existence of their 'God.'"

No, actually, we don't owe you that. What we do owe you--and just as importantly, what you owe us--is not forcing our beliefs upon you.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:21 PM on November 3, 2006

It is only appropriate that there are now 666 messages in this thread.
posted by litlnemo at 7:26 PM on November 3, 2006

Am I 666? It would only be appropriate, seeing as how I am teh gay and all.
posted by mijuta at 7:27 PM on November 3, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "Where did you get the idea that those of us who accept traditional sexual morality think that what you do with your boyfriend is more important or worse than the other things you mention?"

You made a mistake!

Where did you get the idea that those of us who accept traditional fundamentalist Judeo-Christian sexual morality think that what you do with your boyfriend is more important or worse than the other things you mention?"

Much better.

And where did I get the idea? Every fucking time some fucking Christian fundamentalist wackjob witters on endlessly about the demons of gay perversion, and doesn't say a fucking thing about the tens-if not hundreds-of thousands of Iraqis who have died since Bush lied to the world. When they neither say nor do anything about poverty. Or rape. Or violence. Or homelessness.

Newsflash: JESUS DIDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHO FUCKED WHOM, FLYING OR NOT. And seeing as you can't actually show any sort of Biblical justification for your bigotry, you're just as bad as Haggard, Konolia, and the rest of the fucking crew: a bigot using mistranslated and multiple-politically-edited texts to support your own small-mindedness.

As for calling someone a moron? I have never claimed to be perfect. But nor do I try and make sure that you do not have the same rights as I do.

Take your fucking bigotry elsewhere.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:28 PM on November 3, 2006

amberglow: peeping, because that's all we hear and see--we don't see anyone putting their energy into feeding the poor or housing the homeless or anything--this crowd's time and energy is spent hating us. [...] He also had the ear of the entire media and did not ever use it to spread Jesus' teachings or words

There is real homophobia, and at least some of what you pick up on is that. But the media focuses on controversy, and homosexuality is always controversial. So much of what you hear and see is the result of the intense media focus on controversy. I know plenty of people who accept the traditional teaching on homosexuality who devote their energies to helping the poor, immigrants, etc... Get them in a conversation on mefi, and suddenly they're being accused of thinking gay sex is the most important thing! What really bothers some people, it seems to me, isn't that those of us who accept traditional sexual morality overemphasize the importance of the issue of homosexuality (typically I think we do not), but rather that we won't say that wrong is right, that we won't agree that bodies are mere material to be used however one wants in order to get whatever one happens to want (so long as we grant that freedom to others). To hear some people talk, so long as there is consent, nothing two (or however many) people do to each other can possibly be wicked or depraved. That strikes me as obviously false.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:29 PM on November 3, 2006

"Am I 666? It would only be appropriate, seeing as how I am teh gay and all."

Sorry mijuta, I should have let you have the honor. (Mine was the lucky number #666. I was going to actually comment on something in the Harper's article, but then realized that it had already been said above -- the bit about the gay bar recruiting -- which, incidentally, made me laugh and laugh when I read it. "OH no! Don't make me go to those awful heathen Satanic gay bars! ... well, if I have to, I will, for the LORD!"
posted by litlnemo at 7:32 PM on November 3, 2006

Quit misrepresenting Jesus. He most certainly did(and does) care about holiness, and sexual morality is part of that.

But the points made in this thread about ministering to the poor, etc. are spot on. I suspect God is wanting to get the attention of His Church on such topics. Altho Christians as good citizens should get involved in politics just like everyone else, the church at large has crawled in bed with the political parties and prostituted itself.

Jesus Himself said His kingdom was not of this world. Many evangelicals do forget that.
posted by konolia at 7:32 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia and I agree!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:34 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia writes "Quit misrepresenting Jesus. He most certainly did(and does) care about holiness, and sexual morality is part of that."

Prove it, you fucking bigot. Show me ONE FUCING TIME when the 'Pricne of Peace' said "GAY IS BAD". ONE. I fucking challenge you to fucking prove what you fucking say. Can you fucking face it, you mealymouthed little turnip? CAN YOU?

Or would it force you to realize that you're choking on a fucking lie, and clinging to a fucking retarded interpretation of a text in order to shelter yourself from anything resembling independent thought, you fat fucking bigoted small-minded homophobic bitch?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:38 PM on November 3, 2006

Did anyone notice that konolia's profile shows her located in or near Tibet? Latitude/Longitude: 35.05425, 79.011328.
posted by Robert Angelo at 7:44 PM on November 3, 2006

According to Him even looking at a WOMAN with lustful intent was committing adultery, which He condemned. He lumped all sexual immorality together when He spoke of it, and His contemporaries understood quite clearly that homosexuality was not acceptable. If God had felt that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman, there would have been an example of that in His word. But instead, over and over and over again, God spoke of His wrath against His people's rebellion against him, with sexual sin being a definite part of that rebellion. Read parts of Exekiel, they get quite explicit.
posted by konolia at 7:45 PM on November 3, 2006

Oh, and dirtynumbangelboy, I can give you chapter and verse where Jesus said if a man called another a fool he was in danger of hellfire.

;-)
posted by konolia at 7:48 PM on November 3, 2006

Peeping_Thom: "What really bothers some people, it seems to me, isn't that those of us who accept traditional sexual morality overemphasize the importance of the issue of homosexuality (typically I think we do not), but rather that we won't say that wrong is right, that we won't agree that bodies are mere material to be used however one wants in order to get whatever one happens to want (so long as we grant that freedom to others)."

No, what really bothers some people is that you think of yourself as morally superior, because you believe your version of religion is the right one, not to mention because of your biologically determined sexual identity. Congratulations, you can fuck your wife's pussy and your wife can have babies. That doesn't make you God's sacred disciple.

You write "but rather that we won't say that wrong is right." The problem is that your interpretation of homosexuality as "wrong" is off-base to begin with.
posted by mijuta at 7:51 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia writes: Quit misrepresenting Jesus.

Lol. You spew hatred by arguing indirectly that gays are pedophiles. And you expect us, who've read the Bible with open hearts and minds, to take your word for what Jesus thought?

You're a joke. And while I have some sympathy for those that argue that you're a good person trapped within a sick, twisted ideology of hate, I don't know -- you strike me as someone who's got the exact people surrounding you that you deserve. Hateful, short-sighted, unable to see past their own self-rightesouness -- exactly the people Jesus had a problem with.

Christian, heal thyself.
posted by bardic at 7:52 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia writes: If God had felt that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman, there would have been an example of that in His word.

Huh? Who did God marry?

You, my dear nut-ball, are the gift that keeps on giving.
posted by bardic at 7:54 PM on November 3, 2006

konolia writes "His contemporaries understood quite clearly that homosexuality was not acceptable."

Did they clearly understand that? Quote me the fucking chapter and verse where Jesus said it, you obtuse little turd.

Not Paul. Not any of the bullshit he wrote. Jesus.

But then again... you never fucking bother responding to any point that could, if you responded to it directly and honestly shake your little worldview.

You really don't think I'm an actual human being, do you?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:54 PM on November 3, 2006

I was raised a Christian. By some incredibly wonderful, caring, sympathetic, kind-hearted people who are still around and still Christian.

Southern Baptist, even. Helping the poor and downtrodden was what they pursued. My grandfather in his 80s was still down at work sites building community centers, going to nursing homes to visit. He's 92 now, so not so much on the work sites or visit, but still a spry old guy that likes to argue (and still a bit more racist than I'm comfortable with, but hey, he's 92 and was raised in Alabama). My grandmother always loved and still loves helping people.

You know what never came up when I was being brought up as a Christian? This shit. Any of this shit. Any of this utter and complete piles of crap that everyone is now seems to have brainwashed themselves about. That God somehow cared about any of this. He doesn't. The Bible is just some old dusty collected documents, lots of which have been left out for our versions that we English speakers seem to like so much, yet you guys put stock in it like it's fucking reality.

You don't care about God. Or Jesus. Or even the Bible. You're just addicted to your own hateful bullshit of wanting to control people. The mere thought of not believing your own bullshit terrifies you. Oh, you can say it doesn't, but that's the issue. Reconsidering all this self-induced brainwashing, well, it's like looking back on your life and starting to realize "Wow, I've wasted my life." No one wants to do that. No one wants to think they've wasted their lives. Well, you know, there have been billions of people in the long history of humanity, most of them wasted their lives. It's just the nature of living things. We survive. We're not all important. But the idea that we're not, that's really where the idea of God comes from. Just think, if you're important to the guy who created the universe, well, hell, it doesn't matter whatever else you do in life, or how you treat people, etc. Hey, you're in with God, you're important.

You know what, no, you're not important to God. Because there is no God.

Stop believing all this lunatic ranting bullshit and go out there and try to make the world a better place. I mean really a better place, not some second-coming-in-waiting-for-the-antichrist bus stop.

And if you ever, once, at any point in your life thought to yourself "Well, they'll find out when they die." then you don't care about anything or people. You're anxious to see people hurt and punished for not thinking like you. You're not concerned about "salvation" or "god" you're just justifying your own very narrow little view.

Stop insisting that I respect your hatefulness. I don't. I don't care. I won't respect it. Ever. I don't expect you to respect mine either, but that's mostly because I choose not to have any.
posted by smallerdemon at 7:56 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

konolia, how many wives does your husband have? I'd hate to think he's involved in a social practice like monogamy, which Jesus' contemporaries also looked down upon.
posted by bardic at 7:57 PM on November 3, 2006

Konolia: "According to Him even looking at a WOMAN with lustful intent was committing adultery, which He condemned. He lumped all sexual immorality together when He spoke of it, and His contemporaries understood quite clearly that homosexuality was not acceptable. If God had felt that a man could marry a man or a woman a woman, there would have been an example of that in His word. But instead, over and over and over again, God spoke of His wrath against His people's rebellion against him, with sexual sin being a definite part of that rebellion. Read parts of Exekiel, they get quite explicit."

Oh Konolia, you really do need to brush up on your biblical studies. I don't mean Bible study, I mean the history of the Bible. Your ignorance of the Bible's historical context speaks volumes.

Also, you've dodged several (at least a dozen, I'd say) very smart and legitimate questions posed to you in this thread. That speaks volumes as well. Either keep your head in the sand or have some real discourse without resorting to blanket statements like "Sin is what God says it is. Period." :)
posted by mijuta at 8:00 PM on November 3, 2006

jonmc: How old are you, 12? I'm sure in your mind I'm some holy roller abortion clinic bomber, . . ..

Put words in my mouth, why don't you, Mr. Polite Debate. Ironically, we were pals in my last MeFi incarnation (long dead, but like Jesus I have risen). I get it, you think it's nice to be nice to folks like the very nice bigot Kornolia. I have two words in response: Matthew Shepherd. Kornolia, "nice" or not, belongs to the active group of Americans whose legitimation of anti-gay hatred based on "natural laws" they find in their own peculiar books led to his murder, and so many others. And, no, I'm not 12. I'm in my 40s and quite well educated, thank you very much.

jonmc: This sentence is what I found offensive and scary:
"Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person" . . .
who died and left you boss?

Oh, gosh. I'm so sorry my statement of opinion, phrased in a perfectly reasonable form of assertion and subsequently (and previously) justified with arguments from fact, offended and "scared" you. Yet Kornolia and Thomist spill dozens of similarly bossy assertions about their beliefs being the only right and "natural" and "moral" way to think, and they represent millions of wacked-out Christian hatemongers who believe (and often shout) that AIDS is "God's punishment for fags" and all the rest (and to base the argument on epidemiology, apparently God also hates poor, non-white, straight people too), and they are just "nice" folks we shouldn't find offensive or scary? Color me shocked.

"Who died and left you boss?" What are you, 12? Because, jon, that's playground argument, not reasoned debate. I expressed my (strong) opinions. It was a polemic, no more or less polemical than half the posts in this thread or what you'll hear in any church on Sunday. Do you ask that same question of Kornolia for equating homosexuality with pedophilia, or Thomist for calling all non-procreative sex a "sin?" No, you don't. I think you suffer from a little confusion, and perhaps some feelings of inferiority. You make nice with stupid people because people who can actually make a rational argument "scare you." As SBMike already asked, what did I say that was "scary?" Did I suggest that Christians are an unnatural abomination, or that their lives are less valuable than non-Christians' lives? Did I make fun of the diseases that afflict overweight (and mostly Christian) Americans as "Nature's revenge on believers?" Did I suggest jailing Christians who counsel against abortion? Do explain what was "scary" about anything I said, compared to the terrorism practiced by a great number of Christians in the name of their "god." Atheists don't terrorize others in the name of non-belief. We're funny that way. We just try to win the argument with facts, though a few insults for color might find their way into the mix because we educated folks do find ignorance annoying -- because it's easily cured.

fcm: "As for the righteous Christians, the idea that a bunch of fat, rich, SUV-driving, suburban holy rollers . . . "
jonmc: "my experiences with self-proclaimed born-agains has been exactly the opposite. most of the ones I've known have been people who were in desperate straits due to addiction abuse or other crises . . ."

Well, bully for you. I suggest you visit the Rev. Ted's McChurch and show me how many "desperate" types you find leaving their SUVs in the parking lot. Or how many black faces you see. Or how much the very wealthy New Life Church has given to help the truly poor. I have *plenty* of first hand experience with plenty of different kinds of fundies, and the ones who worry me are the fat middle-class ones who worship the Golden Calf of conservative politics, currently personified by the deified figure of George W. Bush. On balance, most fundies I know don't give much of a shit about people who are truly in "desperate straits" unless they are Christian, or potential converts to Christianity, or the Megachurches would be at the front lines of the anti-war movement. Which, by the way, they are not. They actively *support* wars (certainly the current war in Iraq, in droves), most of the time. They use martial metaphors to describe their political activities, support the death penalty, and excuse egregious violence done in the name of their "god." They want to deny birth control to women, and force even rape victims to carry their pregnancies to term. Must I go on?

As for addiction, they have perfectly good secular treatments for that, and they work quite well. Jesus not required. I'd love to see the epidemiological proof that being Christian makes you healthier. Not in my experience. What it does do, in places like Colorado Springs, is make you richer, and perhaps a gay meth addict.

jonmc: "and while we've gotten into it pretty heavily over various issues most of them have been nothing but kind to me, so I'm disinclined to dismiss such a huge swath of people so blithely. Your professed view is no less simplistic than theirs."

Of course they're "kind" to you. You extend tolerance to their bigotry. And the "kindness" is the schtick you see in Ted Haggard's megawatt dentist-perfected smile. It's crap. It masks hatred.

And funny, I didn't mention you at all in my original post. So I wasn't mean to you or nice to you. I guess I was a little mean to the nice Christian bigot lady, true, and she's so nice that she has to turn the other cheek and can't defend herself, poor thing. So for that, you go into white knight mode and get your dander all up and defend the bigot because she is "nice."

As many others have pointed out in this thread, her beliefs represent one of the least "nice" strands in the American social fabric, and one of the most oppressive and scary. Ted Bundy was "nice" to people too -- famously so -- until he had them alone and his hands around their necks. So I'm not so "nice." Sue me. Or answer my points rather than attacking my character on no evidence. Because I may not be nice, but on the subject of whether "laws" like "homosexuality is a sin" are "natural" or not, I'm right, and you can't debate the point. They are not "natural laws;" they are human bigotry dressed up "nicely" in legalistic language. There is no basis in "nature" for the anti-gay bigotry of people like Kornolia. She's nice; but she hates (or what part of "gays are the same as pedophiles" don't you understand, jon?), and she justifies that hatred in others based on a book of fairy tales.

My view is not at all "simplistic" except in the best Occam's Razor sense that I prefer the simple explanation for observable facts to ones that rely on mystical assertions of magical forces beyond proof. My view is "simply" based on observable facts and probable arguments, some of which are somewhat complex (yet I don't, a la Msgr. Thomist, insist that you can't debate them unless you read the science behind them as I have -- or would you like to debate the genetic basis for altruism sometime?). Science isn't so simple. It's a lot more "simplistic"(in fact) to argue that all we see around us was created by a supernatural being who oddly resembles us, minor and late branch of the great evolutionary tree that we are, on this one little planet in this one little galaxy in a corner of a vast universe about which we know very little (but more than thousands of years of religion ever figured out, in just a couple hundred years during which science has been free of its oppressive yoke). "God" is a trick of consciousness, and consciousness should be able to get past the first, simplistic explanation for "nature" to occur to primitive human beings after a few thousand years. We don't live in caves or die at 30 any longer. We should be able to update our view of the universe a bit.

My views are strongly held and absolute, which is not the same as "simplistic," and very different from forms of absoluteness (to say nothing of absolution) that depend upon an appeal to faith rather than observable facts and reason. I think it's the force of my argument that "scares" you more than its content.

And indeed, my views are not so absolute as all that. As I said in my post that "scared" you, I'm willing to change my tune entirely if someone, anyone, can show me proof that "God" exists, and that there are "natural laws" that forbid particular sexual behaviors "inscribed" on the human "heart." I will eat my laptop if you can do that, jon, or kornolia, or thomist. I can show you hard (boy, a pun a minute around here) evidence that same-sex coupling occurs in many species of mammals. So how difficult is it to show me that this is an abomination of God's "natural laws?" Not up to the challenge, are you, Kornolia or Thomist? So who's being simplistic here?

The idea that we have to be "nice" and respect all opinions as equal in the name of open debate is fine, if we're comparing equally valid opinions. Assertions based on faith and proffered as rules for living for those of us who don't believe are not "opinions" that need to be respected. They are attempts to control the behavior of others and claim moral (and political) authority on no objective basis. Such attempts do not deserve the respect we reserve for genuine personal opinions, or competing factual arguments. I offer an objective basis for atheism, but despite my view that it is the only rational belief system for a modern person, I would not ever force others to hold it. All I would force upon people is leaving your religion out of politics, because atheists are citizens too, and because the founders of this country (US) wanted it that way. And it works. Imposing your religion on people who don't believe in it betrays the founding principles of a modern, secular democacy. I've had enough of it.

I'm sorry I told you to kiss my ass, JonMC. I realize that is asking you to perform an abomination before G_d. So how about you just grow a pair yourself. If you're really as pro-choice, gay tolerant, and secular as you assert, then don't defend people who would actually like to see you converted or dead. Because make no mistake, that's how the Ted Haggards of this world think, and perhaps the Kornolias as well. Stand up for liberty and reason. It's fine to be nice, but not at the expense of the truth.

In response to a few others:

UptonO'Good, I do not condemn all Christians as gay hating. I condemn gay hating Christians. And hate-mongering Christians in general. I think they deserve some hate thrown right back at them. Now, that's a whole lot of Christians, but not all, I admit. The rest are just delusional cultists, but not so dangerous.

Peeping_Thomist, yes it damn well was "cathartic" to write my long post (and this one), and I'm not surprised you can't discern my point. You're so busy telling us we need to read the bible as much as you claim to have done before we debate religion. So my point in writing that was to suggest that maybe you need to learn something about "nature" before you go spouting off about "natural law" and things "inscribed on the heart." Good for the goose, good for the gander.

When it comes down to it, though, your feigned disinterest means you're afraid to debate on my turf, which is the turf of science and common sense. Disguise it as above-the-fray ennui, but you're chicken, because you'll lose the argument without appealing to invisible magic forces for which you have no proof. This ain't your church.

The last dead king and the last dead priest, indeed.

And I haven't even raised the argument from theodicy for the non-existence of god, or at least His impotence or even cruelty. Thomist will know about that, seeing as he was (apparently) raised on Jesuit casuistry. Yeah, that's right. If you want to debate on theological turf, I'm game. Explain to me why the Christian "god of love" allows millions to die in famines and epidemics and genocidal wars, including innocent children and unborn babies untainted even by original sin and supposedly as fully human as those of us who made it past the stage when our lives depended on our mothers' lives. "Pro-life," my ass. Oh I know all the arguments. I've read plenty of theology. And they are all special pleading, amounting to "God works in mysterious ways." How about we skip the whole thing and explain things based on the evidence instead?

OK, I'm done. I apologize for using all this real estate to make such obvious arguments. Or at least they seem obvious to me and others of a scientific cast of mind. I'm sure Kornolia is a very nice Christian lady. So is my mom. They are both wrong, and to the extent that they would impose their hateful and frankly dangerous (because they incite and justify hate) views on non-believers in our secular society (at least on paper we are), they are bigots. (My mom, however, would not impose those views, and in fact I was raised to dislike bigots, by a good Christian mom who dislikes the evangelical fundies and considers them the worst kind of false Christians).

The fact is, we have in Ted Haggard yet another in the endless line of "men of God" who turn out to be flaming hypocrites preaching one thing for the rest of us (under penalty of hellfire, or being tied to a fence in Wyoming and beaten to a pulp) and enjoying another thing for themselves. Droit de seigneur and all that. That he spoke weekly to the WHITE HOUSE has barely been mentioned in this thread. We're in a state of emergency in this country (apologies to non USians) when the religious zealots hold the keys to the secular state. No, I won't shut up about it (even if I get banned from MeFi for it). That is some "scary" shit.

We'll destroy ourselves believing some "God" is going to save us at the last minute, or that we are killing in "God's" name. It makes me sick for the all who are now children that they will still have to contend with ideological deistic claptrap that should have been demolished and relegated to the ash heap of human intellectual and cutlrual history a few hundred years ago. We don't have time for this. The earth is dying, millions are starving, and bombs are falling. Wake up. If "God" is love, then show some, believers. Many of you act like "God" is hate. No wonder some of us on the other side are pissed off and have decided to toss the hate right back in your smug Christian faces.

I'm done. Have at me.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:01 PM on November 3, 2006 [14 favorites]

What a train wreck of a thread. For the record, I think anyone can think anything is a sin...and they should not do that thing, be it homosexuality or buttering the Great Cosmic Muffin.

But what is a sin to you, is not necessarily a sin to me...or for me. Me, I don't see how anyone could worship a god that would forbid love. A commodity so rare, so valuable, so necessary for the spiritual evolution of man and mankind...to forbid it just because two people happen to have the same plumbing seems to me to be the epitome of real obscenity.
posted by dejah420 at 8:01 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Konolia, you accused a lot of innocent, law-abiding people of being pedophiles in this thread.

Accusing the innocent of perpetrating heinous acts they did not commit is not something Jesus would do.

The Ninth Commandment dictates to you that You Must Not Lie, or else you will suffer fiery consequences.

Repent your sins and beg for forgiveness for dishonestly and falsely accusing homosexuals of pederasty, lest you wish that Jesus condemn you to suffer eternal hellfire and damnation, as Scripture and the Word of God Himself demands.

Further, your attempts to proselytize will not buy you brownie points with God Almighty, so the Voice of God commands you to Knock It Off, forthwith.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:05 PM on November 3, 2006

Atheists don't terrorize others in the name of non-belief.

To clarify, I mean in the United States and Europe in the present. A case could be made for Soviet and Chinese and other formally atheist regimes, perhaps, as persecutors of believers as such.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:08 PM on November 3, 2006

metafilter: buttering the Great Cosmic Muffin so you don't have to
posted by quonsar at 8:13 PM on November 3, 2006

Atheists don't terrorize others in the name of non-belief.

no?
posted by quonsar at 8:15 PM on November 3, 2006

quonsar: see my immediate correction above.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:18 PM on November 3, 2006

fourcheesemac: see this thread.
posted by quonsar at 8:21 PM on November 3, 2006

quonsar: see your head up your ass.
posted by mijuta at 8:24 PM on November 3, 2006

Because make no mistake, that's how the Ted Haggards of this world think, and perhaps the Kornolias as well.

Ted Haggard, sure. konolia, I'm not so sure, and yeah that's due to some insider knowledge, but s long as there's hope, I keep trying. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

(or what part of "gays are the same as pedophiles" don't you understand, jon?)....Ted Bundy was "nice" to people too

irony. good for the blood. you condmen her (correctly) for making an unfair comparison and then you do the same. You strike me as smart enough to know that 'Christian' covers a pretty broad swath of people, from Martin Luter King to Fred Phelps.

Ironically, we were pals in my last MeFi incarnation

well, whoever you are, I'm still gonna say what's on my mind. I'm sorry AI don't find things as simple as you seem to and I'm sorry if that bothers you.
posted by jonmc at 8:26 PM on November 3, 2006

If you believe love is what matters, why do you talk to people this way?

Maybe you shouldn't tell him that his love for his partner is worth less than your love for yours. What kind of response would you expect? With your weaseling about how your wanting to fuck your wife's ass is sacred, because you might just have a baby, while his is profane because he won't. If you said that to someone's face, would you be surprised if you got punched? Why then are you surprised by angry words?

True. That's because many Christians have broken away from the Church Christ founded, and have been playing at setting up their own churches, like Pastor Ted did.

And which one is that, exactly?

Prior to Paul, the Greek-speaking Christians or the Aramaic-speaking Christians?

In Paul's time, those Christians who required circumcision, or those who believed it unnecessary? Until the fall of Jerusalem to Rome around 70AD, many Christians considered themselves members of the true path of Judaism, rather than a separate religion.

The Ignatians? The Docetists? The Marcianites? The Ebionites? (Christian sects in the first century or so after Christ)

The Pure of Novatian? The Arians? The Cappadocians? I've just reached the council of Nicea, you know. I could go on and on. It seems to me that Pastor Ted is in good company. Even if there were originally a God, and if Jesus was His son, the history of Christianity is like a giant game of telephone, with every generation of preachers reinterpreting their "received truth." If you think that's the will of God, well, I just don't know what to say.

Get them in a conversation on mefi, and suddenly they're being accused of thinking gay sex is the most important thing!

They seem to expend a lot of effort telling us all why gay sex is bad, going through a lot of wacky contortions to do so. That's a lot of effort for something relatively unimportant. The pro-gay contingent thinks it's important for obvious reasons - they don't want a bunch of nutters telling them how to live their lives.

But instead, over and over and over again, God spoke of His wrath against His people's rebellion against him, with sexual sin being a definite part of that rebellion.

Does God speak about passing laws against these rebels, or that they should be persecuted by true believers? Or does he tell you to live your own life righteously, and leave justice to him? Because, honestly, I don't care what you believe, I just want you and yours to keep out of my life.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:27 PM on November 3, 2006 [9 favorites]

Well, first I'm "scary" and now quonsar implies I "terrorize" people with my words. I think this is the republican strategy of keeping everybody in fear all the time at work. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:32 PM on November 3, 2006

me & my monkey: damn!
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:35 PM on November 3, 2006

Ted Haggard, sure. konolia, I'm not so sure, and yeah that's due to some insider knowledge, but s long as there's hope, I keep trying.

Look, you like konolia. We get it. And that's fine. But WE do not have that special insider knowledge. And without is, she sounds just like any other fundy bigot -- foolish, uninformed, inconsistent. Maybe if she engaged people in actual conversation, she'd appear different. But she comes here once in a while, spouts off some inanity, ignores every half-intellegent question posed to her and leaves. What do you expect?
posted by c13 at 8:37 PM on November 3, 2006

Ted Bundy was "nice" to people too

i think someone needs to put fourcheesemac back in the oven ... because that's half-baked
posted by pyramid termite at 8:37 PM on November 3, 2006

jonmc: smart enough to know that 'Christian' covers a pretty broad swath of people

Indeed I do, including my mom and many other people I care for a great deal. I'm not talking about them all when I condemn the involvement of evangelicals in poiticizing morality. I'm talking about the mainstream evangelical denominations, and the independent non-denominational megachurches, which are effectively a power base for the radical right now in power. Very specifically. I extend my remarks in some cases to a broader "Christian culture" that I have seen in nearly every state in the US (and I've been in all but Hawai'i) that tolerates certain forms of bigotry as compatible with a Christian identity.

My defense of/argument for atheism is addressed to all believers and defenders of faith in god, of all religions. Not Christians as such. Christians merely exemplify, of late, some of the worst effects of religion on human society, but they don't have any monopoly on this.

No further argument, just clarifying my points.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:40 PM on November 3, 2006

But she comes here once in a while, spouts off some inanity, ignores every half-intellegent question posed to her and leaves.

well, you're right ... she did spout off some inanities and ignore some half-intelligent questions

seems to me we could have used less inanities and more intelligent questions ... and a lot less snarking about shrimp and all that tired crap ... arguing that "god hates shrimp" is just a confession of one's utter ignorance of doctrine

i've heard high school students debate things more intelligently than this
posted by pyramid termite at 8:45 PM on November 3, 2006

OK, everybody . . . . the Bundy remark was a Modest Proposal hyperbole. I apologize. I am not equating Kornolia (am I the only one who laughs every time they read that name in this context?) with a serial killer. Really.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:47 PM on November 3, 2006

arguing that "god hates shrimp" is just a confession of one's utter ignorance of doctrine

You know, shrimp being unclean and forbidden to eat is part of current Jewish doctrine. So, if you're going to whine on about religious tolerance, you probably shouldn't refer to a doctrine of currently-practiced Jewish Law as ignorant. Our local reform rabbi is an old family friend, and he a) has a picture of his son's boyfriend on his fridge and b) will not eat shrimp.
posted by boaz at 8:53 PM on November 3, 2006

Konolia, you accused a lot of innocent, law-abiding people of being pedophiles in this thread.

She didn't accuse anyone of being a pedophile. Go look it up. It's somewhere back in the 100s. Or 200s. I've lost track.

OK, everybody . . . . the Bundy remark was a Modest Proposal hyperbole. I apologize. I am not equating Kornolia (am I the only one who laughs every time they read that name in this context?) with a serial killer. Really.

When we've reached this point in the thread, when people are countering a stupid statement linking gays and pedophiles with GOP-style comparisons of posters to serial killers, then it's clear that the comments should have been closed a long time ago.

A long, long, long time ago.

Someone just shoot this damn thing and put it out of its misery. Train wreck is an understatement.
posted by dw at 9:02 PM on November 3, 2006

Look, you like konolia. We get it. And that's fine. But WE do not have that special insider knowledge.

As I said before, in public forums, she's heard me graphically describe my own drug-taking, fornication, bisexual liasons and other things that she probably disapproves of, and yet she still trades jokes with me, congratulated me on my marraige, sent well wishes when I had surgery. So, I keep plugging away. Maybe she'll read Stealing Jesus a book by a gay minister about reconciling faith and tolerance. I am of the opinion that if Jesus shoed up on a flaming pie and told konolia "gay people are A-OK!" she'd probably breathe a sigh of relief. So I keep trying to get her to see that maybe it's already happened. Call me a cockeyed absurdist.
posted by jonmc at 9:04 PM on November 3, 2006

shrimp being unclean and forbidden to eat is part of current Jewish doctrine.

were we debating jewish doctrine in this thread? ... it was quite clear what it was i was referring to, if you had paid any attention to the context ... which had to do with christian doctrine

i should have been more specific, seeing as you aren't able to pay closer attention ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:05 PM on November 3, 2006

arguing that "god hates shrimp" is just a confession of one's utter ignorance of doctrine

It is tiresome hearing the same lazy canard when scripture is repeated back verbatim at fundamentalists:

"Oh, you're not citing the right passage!" Or, "You're taking scripture out of context!"

It's dishonest — worse, it is willfully dishonest.

Either let us quote the same damn thing you're quoting, consequences be damned, or shut up.

If you're going to live by the Holy Book as the Word of God, you'll have to live with people pointing out the passages you don't like, even if your scripture makes you look an idiot.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:12 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

which had to do with christian doctrine

Ah yes, I'm familiar with that one. That would be the Christian doctrine of ignoring the parts of the bible where you'd actually have to do something different, and keeping the parts where you only have to hate something different.
posted by boaz at 9:21 PM on November 3, 2006 [3 favorites]

ThePinkSuperhero: I have never ever EVER heard of someone who doesn't use drugs buying them and then throwing them away.

I could see myself doing that, if I were tempted to use drugs. It'll be interesting to see if Pastor Ted is lying now, or if this really is a case of a guy who flirted at great length with various temptations (getting massages so that he could come right up to the line of doing something sinful but still be able to deny that's what he was doing, buying drugs but then throwing them away), or a guy who sometimes did the things he was tempted to do.

I've downloaded pornography and then deleted it without looking at it, but then I've also sometimes downloaded pornography and looked at it. I hope Pastor Ted won't make the mistake of lying about this stuff to the people he's accountable to.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:22 PM on November 3, 2006

arguing that "god hates shrimp" is just a confession of one's utter ignorance of doctrine

I almost agree with this statement. But here's the thing: some people are ignorant of doctrine. And they want to stay that way. It would seem weird for someone to spend a lot of time and effort to study something they don't believe in. I speak only for myself when I say that the Bible ranks somewhere close to The Lord of the Rings for me. Or The Matrix. I've seen forums dedicated to in-depth discussion of all three. But I just don't have time or inclination to learn this stuff so I can come up with uber cool arguments. I'm not alone in this, I think. I haven't meet many Christians that know much about science, or care to learn. Yet that does not stop them from talking about the "natural law", whatever this is supposed to mean. Furthermore, ignorance of which doctrine do you have in mind? Where I live, it seems like every little pidly church has its own doctrine. The guy I work with (a Catholic) had a girlfriend that belonged to the church made of 20 or so people who think that Southern Baptists are a bunch of liberal, loose-living sinners. Shell fish is bad? She wouldn't drink any coke, tea or coffee because caffeine is the devil. Apparently it's also in the Bible somewhere.
Quite frankly, I don't think a rational debate is possible to begin with. How does one talk to a person who claims that he's in possesses the book that is THE word of GOD? Given that the only evidence he has for that assertion comes from that very same book? I don't really care to argue, or change minds. I just want to be left alone. And the only reason that I post in these kinds of threads is because I'm annoyed that my wish is not respected.

Jonmc, this may be a little off-topic (well, not like there is one anymore), but maybe you can explain this to me: why is there a need to reconcile faith and tolerance to begin with? I mean fine, I'm a sinner. I'm unsaved, I'm going to hell. Whatever. Why do evangelicals worry so much about what I do? I don't by this whole "love" argument because of the simple fact that the wast, wast majority of them don't even know I exist. Why punish gays? If there's a final judgement and god hates fags, won't he punish them himself?
More to the point, what is it that these people have to tolerate? Are they constantly attacked by teh gays or prostitutes, or secular humanists?

On preview: I hope Pastor Ted won't make the mistake of lying about this stuff to the people he's accountable to.

Dude, seriously, WTF? He's been lying to everybody for at least 3 years, and nonstop since yesterday. First it was that he was completely innocent, then it was that well, maybe there was some meth and a massage. You're saying you seriously think that he bought meth MULTIPLE times and just threw it away. Every single time?
posted by c13 at 9:28 PM on November 3, 2006

It is tiresome hearing the same lazy canard when scripture is repeated back verbatim at fundamentalists:

"Oh, you're not citing the right passage!" Or, "You're taking scripture out of context!"

it must be even more tiresome for fundamentalists to say this to willfully ignorant people who want to argue about the bible without reading it or understanding how it is interpreted by them

here is why the "god hates shrimp" argument is lame ... the dietary rules in the old testament were superseded by the scripture of the new testament, which says, among other things, gentiles and what they eat are to no longer be considered unclean ... in fact, one has to read the old testament through the lens of the new testament in order to appropriately interpret it

by taking statements like "don't eat shrimp" at random, you're showing ignorance of this ... not to mention that it's a ridiculous hypocrisy to debate quotes from a book that you don't believe in ...

but your real argument is with someone else ... i'm far too radical to be called a fundamentalist ...

and boaz ... quit trolling
posted by pyramid termite at 9:30 PM on November 3, 2006

Are we just going to cycle back to the same thing every couple hundred comments?
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:35 PM on November 3, 2006

"Atheism is the only reasonable "religion" for a modern person"

Well, this is objectively true in a way - reason vs. faith, and all that. I'm not aware of any other religions that are reasonable, or rational, for that matter.

And god doesn't hate shrimp. He hates amputees.
posted by bashos_frog at 9:39 PM on November 3, 2006

and boaz ... quit trolling

From you, I'll take that as a compliment.

not to mention that it's a ridiculous hypocrisy to debate quotes from a book that you don't believe in ...

Heck, I've debated The Old Man and The Sea and Gravity's Rainbow without believing they actually happened. It's funny how Christians, who you'd assume would be genuinely interested in what the bible actually says, instead pretend there's a 'You must believe at least X pieces of bullshit to discuss this book' sign around it. Who's the real hypocrite here?
posted by boaz at 9:40 PM on November 3, 2006

Yeah. I understand that according to Christians the new law supercedes the old one, but these are the same folks who want to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courts. "God hates shrimp" is kind of silly, but that's the point -- especially when some of the politicians who want to put the 10 Commandments up everywhere don't know them all.
posted by bardic at 9:53 PM on November 3, 2006

not to mention that it's a ridiculous hypocrisy to debate quotes from a book that you don't believe in

Wow, just when a religious thread couldn't get any worse, this nugget of stupidity shows up again.

No one needs or cares to debate the minutiae of your ridiculous book to point out the glaring rational inconsistencies in citing one ridiculous part of scripture, but not another ridiculous passage, simply to justify your blind, irrational hatred of one or another group of people.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:57 PM on November 3, 2006

fourcheesemac: ...Kornolia (am I the only one who laughs every time they read that name in this context?)...

ummm...probably? Because her name is konolia. Ko no li a. No "r".
posted by brain cloud at 10:03 PM on November 3, 2006

look at all these comments!

i'm horrified by the evangelical movement. horrified. they're like babbling babies, or wholesome teens from 1950's flicks. and they're driven by fear and by faith and lord knows that's a bad combo.
posted by punkbitch at 10:08 PM on November 3, 2006

...and sterile doctrine.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:13 PM on November 3, 2006

No one needs or cares to debate the minutiae of your ridiculous book

i'd say the evidence upthread is that many people do ...

to point out the glaring rational inconsistencies in citing one ridiculous part of scripture, but not another ridiculous passage,

again, it depends on whether the passages work the same way in scripture as a whole ... dietary strictures were superceded

simply to justify your blind, irrational hatred of one or another group of people.

well, that's not me you're talking to there, i don't have a problem with the idea of gay people getting married ... and if you're going to debate a certain topic in the bible, such as homosexuality, you should be aware that there are people ... gay people ... gay ministers ... who have done it a lot more intelligently and thoroughly than you could dream about ...

the shrimp thing is amateur hour ... forget it

Are we just going to cycle back to the same thing every couple hundred comments?

i guess that depends on how rational and quick to learn people are, doesn't it?

sometimes i wonder if half the people on this site were locked in closets by abusive ministers or something, because there's a lot of traumatic drama acted out in these threads ... i can't even explain something elementary and reasonable without getting jumped on

but i keep forgetting that i'm the irrational moron and that the rest of you are levelheaded paragons of calm debate ...

bye bye
posted by pyramid termite at 10:16 PM on November 3, 2006

win
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:24 PM on November 3, 2006

again, it depends on whether the passages work the same way in scripture as a whole ... dietary strictures were superceded

You don't get to babble It's-The-Word-of-God-Period and then pick and choose favorable scripture. That's just not how it works.

If this book is the Word of God, and its proponents cite their favorite lines and verses, I'm afraid the entirety is fair game, even despite cultural changes vis à vis slavery, diet, women etc. — changes which further underscore the arbitrariness of the Bible's moral content.

But you were willfully missing the point anyway. Bye bye.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:36 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

It'll be interesting to see if Pastor Ted is lying now, or if this really is a case of a guy who flirted at great length with various temptations (getting massages so that he could come right up to the line of doing something sinful but still be able to deny that's what he was doing, buying drugs but then throwing them away), or a guy who sometimes did the things he was tempted to do.

Are you fucking kidding me?
posted by papakwanz at 11:13 PM on November 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Goddammit, you fucking people have ruined what should be a beautiful thread.

We should be standing together here in the blue, hand-in-hand, the white, the black, the Jewish, the gay and straight Mefites, standing together and pointing our fingers and laughing beautiful peals of silver laughter at Ted Haggard. Who, it turns out, is a huge meth-snortin' homo.

TED HAGGARD IS DRUG USING, GAY-SEX BUYING, MOTEL-CREEPING, GAY-BASHING HYPOCRITE AND HE JUST GOT BUSTED.

That is the proper topic of this thread, my friends. Now let us gloat together.
posted by LarryC at 11:13 PM on November 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

*High fives LarryC*
posted by 2sheets at 11:17 PM on November 3, 2006

Over 700 posts, and yet no one has addressed the central point, viz.:

WHO is Mike Jones? WHO IS MIKE JONES?
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:21 PM on November 3, 2006

One the one hand, I'm delighted by this story. It does my heart good to see hypocrisy punished, especially the hypocrisy of someone who has spouted hate and helped influence my country's government to act unjustly towards its own citizens and other people around the world. Haggard deserves, on the one hand, scorn, ridicule, and probably a jail sentence. He has directly or indirectly caused a lot of people to suffer through his politics and bigotry, and he is getting that back, plain and simple.

But there's a tragic side to this whole affair that brings me down, and I will admit to feeling a certain amount of guilt over enjoying another human being's suffering, even if that human being is a lowlife liar like Haggard. In a better world, Haggard wouldn't have had to hide his sexual desires for his entire life. In a better world, he could have pursued an open relationship with another man, and he could have believed in whatever God he wanted at the same time, with no contradiciton. He could have truly followed the tenets of compassion, mercy, generosity, forgiveness, brotherhood... all those things that Christianity, as a practiced religion, should be. His family and friends would have never been betrayed and lied to, nor would they have been part of his double life of illicit desire and evangelical bigotry. In a better world, he wouldn't have to seek out meth in order to lose himself in a drug-induced high; he would have been happy to be who he is, happy to be gay, Christian, whatever, without having to hide from his self-loathing in chemicals. In a better world, Jones would not have had to prostitute himself in order to survive. He wouldn't have had to sell drugs. He would have had to cater to the secret lusts of closeted, suffering liars like Haggard. And at the very least, in a better world, events like this might be the catalyst for some real change. At best, this hurts the Republicans and costs them some evangelical votes (and believe me, I'm hoping that it will). At worst, many people are confirmed or even strengthened in their belief that another person's sexuality is any of their business or defines their morality.
posted by papakwanz at 11:42 PM on November 3, 2006

Knife fight, anyone?
posted by Joeforking at 12:42 AM on November 4, 2006

you fat fucking bigoted small-minded homophobic bitch

dirtynumbangelboy, I respect your anger, but this tirade is a bit much. Also, I read konolia's comments, and it didn't strike me that she was drawing an exact match between ordinary gayness and pedophila. Her logic might be broken, but I didn't see that equation in her post.

LarryC: I also tried to get this thread on track earlier on. Can we get back to the fizzy drinks with umbrellas in them and the gloating?
posted by jokeefe at 12:57 AM on November 4, 2006

papa, he wouldn't have had the power he used to wield--even in a better world. Religious-political leaders on that level (30 million members of that Evangelical Assoc?) would still have to be straight, especially if Christian.

What's tragic is not that he's a hypocritical druggie closetcase (that's par for the course nowadays)--but that he caused so much harm and spread so much hate in this world. Now at least that will stop and his bully pulpit (in all senses of the words) is gone.
posted by amberglow at 1:02 AM on November 4, 2006

Evangelist Ted Haggard admitted Friday that he bought methamphetamine and received a massage from a gay prostitute who claims he was paid for drug-fueled trysts by the outspoken gay marriage opponent.

God hates konolia's broken gaydar
posted by matteo at 1:26 AM on November 4, 2006

In a better world USA, he could have pursued an open relationship with another man, and he could have believed in whatever God he wanted at the same time, with no contradiciton.

There, fixed that for you.
posted by zarah at 2:18 AM on November 4, 2006

Look, I don't have time to read this whole thread. Is there somebody I can just insult here? Um, fuck you, left-handed gay Irish janitors.
posted by Dunwitty at 2:36 AM on November 4, 2006

HEY!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:23 AM on November 4, 2006

I love you all, unconditionally.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:24 AM on November 4, 2006

I know I'm a day late (and really drunk) but this:

We are all helpless, all unable to be holy in ourselves

from konalia is a really sad conclusion to draw from the Bible. Shit, I'm not even religious and I don't get such a depressing message from that book.
posted by bunglin jones at 4:14 AM on November 4, 2006

Sorry, random comments:

According to Him even looking at a WOMAN with lustful intent was committing adultery, which He condemned.

It's nice that Jesus understood how annoying and degrading it is to be openly oggled by strange men. Nice that he condemned that. It's very rude.

Now, also: you can't claim that we're all just ignorant of scripture because we quote parts of the bible that you consider superceded when even in this very thread konolia make a hand-waving gesture toward Ezekiel and told us to go read it. The challenge was to get the goods directly from Jesus. Jesus never said ignore the shrimp passage, but not the gay-hating ones. Jesus broke some rules (not the clean/unclean food ones, you'll note) and then said, look, charity and kindness to others, particularly to those scorned by society and your peers, trumps the rigid rules. Reading the rules too literally rather than understanding the intent of them is a problem. So, you can opt to eat shrimp, and/or you can opt to stop hating gays. Which do you think God cares about more?
posted by Hildegarde at 5:06 AM on November 4, 2006

LA Times on Haggard.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 5:18 AM on November 4, 2006

jokeefe writes "dirtynumbangelboy, I respect your anger, but this tirade is a bit much. Also, I read konolia's comments, and it didn't strike me that she was drawing an exact match between ordinary gayness and pedophila. Her logic might be broken, but I didn't see that equation in her post."

I don't think it's a bit much at all. Quite frankly, it doesn't even come close to being enough. Konolia and her ilk are responsible for death every day. They are responsible for children being beaten up, and being thrown out of their homes. They are responsible for one of my friends being in a coma for three days. They are responsible for denying marriage benefits--and yet allowing Britney fucking Spears to get married for 40 minutes, because that doesn't devalue the institution.

They are responsible for pain and suffering and brainwashing and there are no words in the English language that adequately express the depth of contempt and rage I feel for these fucking hypocrites.

Or to put it another way: Konolia is a fat, gluttonous hypocritical waste of flesh.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:24 AM on November 4, 2006

Sorry Jon, I still am vaguely in yr corner, but Kornholia lost me on this day, after years of being able to lurkishly tolerate her.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 5:25 AM on November 4, 2006

Just to make this thread complete: there's nothing wrong with being fat.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:26 AM on November 4, 2006

Hildegarde: there is when gluttony is a sin and you spew endless filth about homosexuality being a sin.

Mote in your brother's eye, etc. Let [s]he who is without sin, etc.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:43 AM on November 4, 2006

Dude, I was kidding. Beacuse you know, threads about fat people always end well at metafilter.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:01 AM on November 4, 2006

Oh.

Still, my point stands. But just in case anyone wants to quote out of context:

Nothing wrong with being fat. Everything wrong with it when gluttony is a sin and you carp endlessly about everyone else's sins.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:07 AM on November 4, 2006

Jonmc, this may be a little off-topic (well, not like there is one anymore), but maybe you can explain this to me: why is there a need to reconcile faith and tolerance to begin with?

Well, if a person gets something positive out of their faith, I'd be the last person to want to take that from them. But I'd like to see them reconcile that with ridding themselves of some of the churches more archaic doctrine. But, truth be told I'm just more saddened than anything else.
posted by jonmc at 7:52 AM on November 4, 2006

How great thou aren't, Art.
posted by jaronson at 8:14 AM on November 4, 2006

zarah: There, fixed that for you.

I understand your point, zarah, but there are places in the US where one can lead an openly gay lifestyle, and there are plenty of people who do so. And there are many places in the world where it is much worse to be gay than it is in the US. World =! metropolitan Western Europe.
posted by papakwanz at 8:25 AM on November 4, 2006

amberglow:
I think you didn't quite get what I was saying. I probably should have added, "In a better world, a religious leader like him would be more concerned with setting an example of charity and kindness to his fellow human than manipulating politics for his own selfish ends."
posted by papakwanz at 8:32 AM on November 4, 2006

"This is so much bigger than what happens (in the election) Tuesday," says Ted Olsen, online managing editor of Christianity Today, the magazine founded by evangelist Billy Graham and the leading religious publication of the evangelical movement. "It has the potential to be a significant long-term crisis moment for evangelical political engagement — but, more importantly, for the whole question of evangelical identity."
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:35 AM on November 4, 2006

If you are so obssesed with sex that you turn a great work of moral philosophy into fuck manual, then you don't need a priest, you need a therapist.

heh.

By the way, in case this Jesus/God deal is for real, if anyone is on good speaking terms with Him or Them and can put in requests that are actually granted, I'd like to ask a favor.

Ask the Big Wheels to send a lightning bolt down and scorch my deranged step-brother's knackers off. He pissed on my front door in the middle of the night two days ago. I think the powers that be will see the rightness of my request.

If this can be done I can get you anything you would like: hookers, booze, deep tissue masseuse, meth ... you name it.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 8:36 AM on November 4, 2006

So if I fashion this dogpig-glazed shrimp cocktail into the icon/image of a man and his ass, lust after it, and then fuck the everloving shit out of it and spill my seed all over it like some kind of salty, creamy garnish on Hell's own Bundt cake and then eat that cocksucker I'm pretty much doomed to the fundamentalist Christian hell, right? Or do I actually have to kill someone?

Whatever. I don't care. I'll even stab puppies and kittens. I just don't want to end up in "heaven" with ANY of the evangelicals. Wherever they're going, I don't want to be there.

If I'm doomed to some kind of fucked up eternal afterlife I'd really like to be free of this kind of happy horseshit even if it means a tormented eternity in an inky black void of absolute nothingness. Hell, I might even catch up on my rigorous and audacious schedule of advanced napping.

Wait, what? Most of the evangelicals and fundies are going to hell? That... that means I'll have to be ...good? OH FUCK I'M SO DOOMED PLEASE KILL ME NOW.
posted by loquacious at 8:52 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Rail at me all you like but the issue is deeper than what is or is not sin. The real issue is that we sin because we are sinners, because we are broken, and we can do nothing in our own strength to change it. Jesus came to rescue us from that.

Stacking up sins according to which are more or less socially acceptable is a meaningless exercise, as it is all abhorrent to almighty God.

By the way, Jesus actually DID declare all foods clean. Eat all the shrimp you like. And you can skip circumcision while you are at it. Really.
posted by konolia at 8:55 AM on November 4, 2006

The video linked in this comment is one of the strangest responses to an accusation I have ever seen. (And I say this as someone who actually spent over 2 years at PTL.) It's like he is talking about someone else. "We have to look into the allegations..." Just.... weird!
posted by The Deej at 8:58 AM on November 4, 2006

So, now that it is likely that we will see the members of the New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals forgive Haggard for his sins and demonstrate grace unto him, will they do so for all others whom they deem to be sinners? In particular will grace lead them to accept gays and lesbians, allowing us to lead their own lives -- ones replete with the same rights, duties and responsibilities as Americans -- with a recognition that the state should not be commanded by any given religion?
posted by ericb at 9:02 AM on November 4, 2006

*lead our own lives*
posted by ericb at 9:03 AM on November 4, 2006

ericb: Survey Says!......

No.
posted by papakwanz at 9:15 AM on November 4, 2006

rage and contempt have undermined everyone's 'moral high road' stance. the thing is, human beings always have, and always will, make themselves out to be superior, steal, lie, have sex with whatever will stand still long enough, including kids and livestock and each other, kill, manipulate and practice virulent hypocrisy. it's what we do. it's the natural state. if you say "not me" then you're either deluded or naive. people will always be deluded and naive and craven and other people will gleefully point that out as if they are immune. the same people will also be wonderful, generous, loving, humble and merciful, sometimes in the name of deception, manipulation, and self-interest.

so, ted haggard holds himself out as a godly man, and he openly denounces gay marriage while he himself, a married father of five, cavorts with male prostitutes in meth-fueled orgies of mansex. and then, he lies about it. and then he lies some more. backed into a corner, his very self-image crumbling in front of the entire world, his previous lies exposed, he lies even more. in summary, he says one thing, does another, proclaims that others should do what he says and not what he does, in fact works avidly to make what he says (not what he does) the legal status quo, and then lies his ass off when busted. and then lies some more. in the end, confronted with his own total corruption, he likely throws himself on the mercy of his deity loudly proclaiming repentance and promising better behavior in the future.

and then, he probably does it again.

this pretty much makes him an ordinary man.

this is pretty much exactly the story told over and over in scripture.
posted by quonsar at 9:21 AM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "Rail at me all you like but the issue is deeper than what is or is not sin. The real issue is that we sin because we are sinners, because we are broken, and we can do nothing in our own strength to change it. Jesus came to rescue us from that. "

Hey, dumbass.

You still haven't answered the fucking question.

Where did Jesus say that gay == bad?

Where?

Have the courage of your convictions or for fuck's sake, go fucking shoot yourself and save us all.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:22 AM on November 4, 2006

quonsar writes "rage and contempt have undermined everyone's 'moral high road' stance."

Hasn't undermined mine. I have zero fucking tolerance for fucking bigots. They simply do not deserve it.

Andf oh sure, you cans ay I'm just saying the same as they are, but I'm not, and any mildly retarded 10 year old would understand that.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:26 AM on November 4, 2006

Rail at me all you like

Considering I didn't call you out (or anyone in particular outside of an ideological demographic), should I consider this an example of a persecution complex?


Hey, konolia? Other fundies? Even mildly religious semi-Christians? I have a question for you.

Have you ever stopped and really pondered upon the implications that early Judaism/Christianity (and in particular, the source of inspiration of their scriptures) may actually have their origins in psychedelic mushroom cults that were scattered widely over the Middle East right around the time Judaism took root? That the whole "sacrament" thing may actually have it's roots in mushroom bread and tea, and that they literally thought that they were partaking in the flesh of the gods? Not at all unlike the numerous South American mushroom cults, who also called it Teo-nanacatl or Flesh of the Gods?

Granted, mushrooms may also be the evolutionary missing link between spoken language and symbolic, written language - but then the whole "I just ate mushrooms and I talked to God" thing has a cross-cultural pan-historical and incidental precedent going back well before the dawn of civilization.

And it sure makes a hell of a lot more sense than the convoluted, interpretive-dance routine telephone game of modern Christianity.


On that note, if all foods are declared clean by Jesus that means I can keep eating mushrooms, right? 'Cause actually talking to God is pretty cool.

In fact, He gave me a message last night but didn't tell me who it was for. He just said I would Know when it was Time. Hey, he's been right every other time so I didn't argue.

The message? Oh, right. He said:

"Quit it with that hateful shit already. The only Law and Message of the Cosmos is Love. That's it.

"All of you sucka MCs who keep trying to make it more complicated then that are really starting to piss me off. Love. Love. Are you in Love?

"Wait, what? WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU FORGOT? *sigh* Ok, look. Whatever you do, whenever you're doing it, do you feel stressed out, angry, or hurtful while you're doing it? YOU'RE NOT IN LOVE, THEN. Do you feel all warm and fuzzy and happy inside? GOOD. PROCEED WITH ABANDON.

"Still don't get it? That's because you're not eating the mushrooms. Look, I put them there for a reason, dumbass.

THAT. IS. ALL. Don't make me come down there and kick your asses, I don't have time for this shit."

posted by loquacious at 9:31 AM on November 4, 2006 [3 favorites]

check out this you tube video of the guy.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 AM on November 4, 2006

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied,"that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together , let man not separate."

No mention here of a one-flesh relationship that is same-sex.

And here, we address the shrimp question along with our main point: Matthew 15:16-20-"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean."

Yes, homosexuality goes under sexual immorality here. Just as he did not mention every kind of evil thought, he did not mention every kind of sexual immorality. If you claim otherwise you could say that He didn't condemn pedophilia or sex with animals either, and I think we all know better than that. (and no, I am not saying that gays do either. )
posted by konolia at 9:36 AM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "No mention here of a one-flesh relationship that is same-sex."

Holy shit. You really are that stupid. He was talking about divorce. Not sex.

You fail. I think now I can only have pity for you, because I cannot imagine how awful it must be to live with such stupidity.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:43 AM on November 4, 2006

Sorry Jon, I still am vaguely in yr corner, but Kornholia lost me on this day, after years of being able to lurkishly tolerate her.

Wow, classy.
posted by delmoi at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2006

konolia writes "Yes, homosexuality goes under sexual immorality here."

Did he say that?

Why no, no he did not.

FAIL.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:45 AM on November 4, 2006

Party on.
posted by fixedgear at 9:51 AM on November 4, 2006

delmoi. thanks for the video link. Funny and creepy.

We've decided that the Bible is the word of God. We don't have to have a general assembly about what we believe. It's written in the Bible. Alright? So we don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It's written in the Bible.

Looks directly into the camera and points with a smile.

I think I know what you did last night. If you send me a thousand dollars I won't tell your wife.

To the camera operator.

If you use any of this I'll sue you.

My God. So to speak.
posted by TrolleyOffTheTracks at 10:00 AM on November 4, 2006

I have zero fucking tolerance for fucking bigots... ...you can say I'm just saying the same as they are, but I'm not, and any mildly retarded 10 year old would understand that.

priceless!
posted by quonsar at 10:08 AM on November 4, 2006

Y'know, when I see Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and the rest of their ilk, I don't see them as exemplifications of modern fundamentalist Christianity. I sincerely doubt they believe most of what they preach. These people are just opportunists cashing in on the faith industry. Hence, I'm never really surprised when they're called out on anything like this.

To these people, it's not about faith or the Bible or Jesus or holiness. It's about power, political influence, and money. I have my issues with fundamentalist Christianity, but these guys aren't Christians. They're actors. At best, they might be Grand Inquisitors (a la The Brothers Karamazov). At worst, they might simply be fame, fortune, and power seekers.

Followers of Christ they are not and should not be placed in that catagory, methinks. I'm sure there are plenty of people genuinely trying to follow Christ's teachings who have been caught up in their cults of personality. I don't deny that these followers hold some responsibility in the rise to power of such characters, but it is with the false prophets that most of the blame lies. People in general are easily led. If they were led by true believers in Christ's words, "homosexual agendas" and the evils of liberalism and the like would quickly be dropped for important issues, like peace, forgiveness, and a real dedication to "loving thy neighbor as thyself".

That's a lot of stating the obvious.
I'm going to eat some oatmeal, now.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:13 AM on November 4, 2006

These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean."

Oh, to return to those good old holy days, before antiseptics (thassa’ librul, jew atheist plot for sure) and before wicked, wicked science! But you know what was really perfect? Civil war battleground surgeries: Ah, the sound of distant cannonfire punctuating the agonized wails of your dying platoon. And eventually just you, a rusty pliers, and what's left of that femoral artery. Good times!
posted by applemeat at 10:16 AM on November 4, 2006

it's not about faith or the Bible or Jesus or holiness. It's about power, political influence, and money

i feel exactly the same way about W.
posted by quonsar at 10:19 AM on November 4, 2006

Thomist : I could see myself doing that, if I were tempted to use drugs. It'll be interesting to see if Pastor Ted is lying now, or if this really is a case of a guy who flirted at great length with various temptations (getting massages so that he could come right up to the line of doing something sinful but still be able to deny that's what he was doing, buying drugs but then throwing them away), or a guy who sometimes did the things he was tempted to do.

I'm all for the benefit of the doubt but I hope you're aware of how meth + man-fun are connected. Common sense tells me that if Art was just tempted to get a little high he probably wouldn't choose meth over the myriad of other easily obtainable drug choices.
posted by General Zubon at 10:26 AM on November 4, 2006

Dirtynumbangelboy: "You fail. I think now I can only have pity for you, because I cannot imagine how awful it must be to live with such stupidity."

I second that. Konolia, your lack of basic knowledge about biblical history is just overwhelmingly obvious.

I commented on this above, but it bears repeating. You can put homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality side by side and then claim OH, BUT I'M NOT SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUALITY = PEDOPHILIA/BESTIALITY! I'M JUST PUTTING THEM IN THE SAME CATEGORY OF SEXUAL IMMORALITY. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? Why is it that you fundies always pair the two, as if they had anything to do with each other? It's a cliched ploy fundies have been trotting out for years.

So go ahead and act all high and mighty and innocent, but no one's buying your brand of bullshit, Konolia. It is not for YOU to judge and condemn others. What part of "Judge not lest ye be judged" do you fundies not understand? As much as you may want to play the role of who decides who does and doesn't go to Hell, IT IS NOT YOUR ROLE TO PLAY. Wake the fuck up, already.
posted by mijuta at 10:26 AM on November 4, 2006

quonsar, I was saving that one for another discussion:

it's not about freedom or the United States or justice or protection. It's about power, political influence, and money
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:27 AM on November 4, 2006

It's this talking points template I've got. Multipurpose! You can use it on the job, at home, in your car. Wherever you see power, political influence, and money. Fits snugly in most overhead compartments.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:31 AM on November 4, 2006

Obviously none of us knows what's up with Pastor Ted, but the following scenario seems to me plausible.

Ted has in the past had furtive, anonymous gay sex. Perhaps that's why in his denials he says he hasn't ever had a gay "relationship". Anonymous bathhouse sex is not a "relationship".

Several times when he is in Denver writing, he toys around with the temptation to have gay sex. He hires a gay massage guy, and gets a massage, all the while feeling awful that he's coming so close to doing something wrong, but still able to plausibly deny, to himself and others, that he has actually done anything wrong yet.

He has heard about meth, and is tempted to take it and masturbate to fantasies of his gay massage guy.

He buys some meth from Jones. When Jones leaves, Ted is overcome with guilt and throws away the drugs. In his mind, he still hasn't actually done anything wrong yet, since he didn't have sex with Jones, didn't take the meth, and didn't masturbate, but he has come perilously close. Ted is grateful to God that he has dodged a bullet. (In Catholic terms, Ted has already voluntarily and without any good reason put himself into the proximate occasion of sin, and hence he has already seriously sinned, but Ted lacks the analytical resources of Catholic moral theology, so he probably thinks he hasn't yet sinned.)

Later on, Ted calls Jones to ask for more meth. After he gets it, however, he again throws it away. He still hasn't ever had sex with Jones.

Jones finds out who Ted is, is pissed, and decides to expose him. He's got the meth phone message and the meth/massage money envelope, and he knows he can have an influence on the gay rights amendment if he times the exposure right. Jones lies, but thinks that what he is saying about Ted is still true, because Jones is certain that Ted has had gay sex, and is pretty sure Ted has used meth.

The media cooperates.

Ted denies having a "relationship" with Jones.

Ted admits to his board of elders that he bought the meth, but says he didn't take it. He says he got massages from Jones, but denies that he had gay sex with Jones. Ted hasn't lied to his board.

Jones fails the polygraph test about having had gay sex with Ted.

Ted isn't exactly lying about anything. He hasn't denied that he struggles with the temptation to seek anonymous gay sex, but he also hasn't admitted it, either.

Jones is lying only about things he feels sure are true anyway, and he thinks it is important to expose to ridicule Ted because of the good effects that can result from the exposure.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

On preview, General Zubon, I don't actually know anything about the link between meth and man-fun. How do you think that connection casts light on this situation?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:42 AM on November 4, 2006

It's this talking points template I've got. Multipurpose! You can use it on the job, at home, in your car.

it's not about bigotry or the Lord or civil rights or freedom. It's about cocks, hairy assholes, and yummy santorum.

hey! i think you've got something there, tgbm!
posted by quonsar at 10:47 AM on November 4, 2006

For Thomist: Crystal methamphetamine and sex
posted by General Zubon at 10:48 AM on November 4, 2006

Oh come on, guys. Konolia is just trying to score some extra credit Jesus points. Can't take care of your own sin -- gotta do *something* to get into the kingdom..
posted by c13 at 10:51 AM on November 4, 2006

http://gaymeth.org
posted by quonsar at 10:52 AM on November 4, 2006

I don't see how the role of meth in the gay subculture shows that Ted is lying about anything (other than the fact that he isn't publicly acknowledging he struggles with the temptation to seek gay sex). Those of you who are so sure he's lying, please explain.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:55 AM on November 4, 2006

hey! i think you've got something there, tgbm!

Yeah, but not much on that list, excepting one cock. I had the Lord, but he skipped out in the middle of the night without saying, "Goodbye."
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:58 AM on November 4, 2006

Obviously none of us knows what's up with Pastor Ted, but the following scenario seems to me plausible.

Dude, that's because you pulled it out of your own ass. You wanted a plausible scenario, so you got one. Judging by the mental contortions you went through in your previous posts, there are many more that you can come up with. What's your point?
posted by c13 at 10:59 AM on November 4, 2006

I guess it just makes me believe he has more than a passing interest in gay sex, which in my mind makes him extremely hypocritical. That's the crux of my interest in the story.
posted by General Zubon at 11:00 AM on November 4, 2006

c13, my point is that many people here are insistent that Ted has lied. I'm wondering how they are so sure.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:01 AM on November 4, 2006

General Zubon, he clearly has more than a passing interest in gay sex. But so far as I can tell, he's never denied that.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:01 AM on November 4, 2006

Those of you who are so sure he's lying, please explain.

HE KEEPS CHANGING HIS STORY every time he's presented with new evidence!
posted by c13 at 11:01 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Ted lacks the analytical resources of Catholic moral theology.

Ah-ha! Well, there ya go.

btw, peeping_Thomast, you seem awfully interested in sex.
posted by applemeat at 11:02 AM on November 4, 2006

It's funny how Haggart went from "I've never seen this guy before in my life" to "oh yeah, I had a massage from him and bought meth but didn't take it or have sex with him", literally in the span of hours.

It seems to me that giving Pastor Ted the benefit of the doubt, given that he's already publicly lied about this until evidence surfaced, is to exhibit a great deal of Christian charity and very little skepticism.
posted by clevershark at 11:02 AM on November 4, 2006

Thomist: General Zubon, he clearly has more than a passing interest in gay sex. But so far as I can tell, he's never denied that.

So much for trying to contribute an opinion to this thread in a constructive manner. I'll see you guys later.
posted by General Zubon at 11:04 AM on November 4, 2006

Obviously none of us knows what's up with Pastor Ted, but the following scenario seems to me plausible.

You have an astonishingly broad definition of plausibility. Compared to your scenario, the existence of Santa Claus seems perfectly reasonable.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:05 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Compared to your scenario, the existence of Santa Claus seems perfectly reasonable.

Oh please, let's just not open that door. Pretty please?
posted by c13 at 11:09 AM on November 4, 2006

Those of you who are so sure he's lying, please explain.

Well, I'm sure he's lying because it is the simplest explanation for this situation. You theory, while possible, is not as plausible as him simply being a liar. How often do people buy drugs and just dispose of them out of guilt rather than use them? How often do people with a penchant for gay flings end up in full body massages with handsome male escorts without it leading to sex? They were obviously familiar enough with each other that Ted was comfortable enough to ask him if he knew where to get some meth. On multiple occasions.

Occam's Razor, I'd have to say.

Though, I suppose we'll see what happens.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:18 AM on November 4, 2006

"Where did Jesus say that gay == bad?"
C'mon, it's obvious - the hillbillies of Jesus' era beat up fags all the time, but do you hear jesus telling them not to beat up fags? No.

"but the following scenario seems to me plausible."
Wow, and here I was thinking you were someone who may be rigid in his beliefs, but was still capable of processing the information at hand and maintaining some level of rational thought.
But you really are a dumbass.
posted by 2sheets at 11:31 AM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Even putting aside Haggart's previous lying and the subsequent meth admission, what actively anti-gay, right-wing Christian--one who has built an empire around touting his hetero-family-man virtues, who decides to get a bona fide, non-sexual massage is going to select a hunky, homo bodybuilder to administer it? (At $100+/hour.) Even if Haggart really never did "have gay sex", (and ok, that’s at least a slight possibility) what Haggart has already admitted to; knowing Jones, getting a “nonsexual” massage from Jones, leaving voicemails with a known gay prostitute; equates a man of Haggarty’s ..uh.. credentials to be gayer than a cantaloupe brunch. And thus, a deceitful hypocrite.
posted by applemeat at 11:38 AM on November 4, 2006

sorry.. Haggard
posted by applemeat at 11:38 AM on November 4, 2006

Look, just because Haggard might have put his tongue up Mike Jones's butthole while getting a massage, he probably held back from cumming and asked Jesus to forgive him, so it doesn't mean he's participated in gay sex, OK?!
posted by mijuta at 11:42 AM on November 4, 2006

Those of you who are so sure he's lying, please explain.

OK. Here's a man with obvious weaknesses, which govern him to the point of hiring a "massage therapist" who is obviously a prostitute and buying drugs repeatedly. And, at the point where is is most likely to give in to his weakness, he shows a degree of willpower that he didn't have just a few minutes before. And not just once, but repeatedly - he's not going to leave voicemails, etc, the first time. So, yes, your scenario stretches plausibility to the breaking point.

Ted lacks the analytical resources of Catholic moral theology

If your previous posts were an example of this analysis at work, bully for him. Are these the same analytical resources that came up with indulgences?
posted by me & my monkey at 11:49 AM on November 4, 2006

Everyone knows in some way that God exists, even those who say that God does not exist.

Oh, fuck, not this shit again.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:58 AM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

Look, just because Haggard might have put his tongue up Mike Jones's butthole while getting a massage, he probably held back from cumming and asked Jesus to forgive him, so it doesn't mean he's participated in gay sex, OK?!

Well, yes, I've been wondering about Haggard's choice of words, according to which he didn't have "homosexual sex with a man". Er, what other sort of sex could he have with a man? Could it be that by "homosexual sex" he only understands taking it up the brownhole, and he's trying a "Clinton" on us?
posted by Skeptic at 12:00 PM on November 4, 2006

clevershark: It's funny how Haggart went from "I've never seen this guy before in my life" to "oh yeah, I had a massage from him and bought meth but didn't take it or have sex with him", literally in the span of hours.

I missed that. Could you point me to where he said he didn't know Jones?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:10 PM on November 4, 2006

He did say at first he never met the man making the accusation (NYTimes link).
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:24 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

I can't believe this post has 800 comments.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:26 PM on November 4, 2006

In the interest of responding to peeping_Thomist's plausible scenario, here's a scenario that *I* find entirely plausible:

Haggard wants some man-beef. He hires a male masseuse that he finds listed in the back of Denver's local independent weekly.

Jones arrives at Haggard's hotel room, or wherever. Haggard likes what he sees. Asks Jones if he has anything to make the massage experience a little more "exciting." Jones sells him some meth, and the two smoke it and get high as a fucking kite.

Haggard then offers Jones some money for a "happy ending" and the two proceed to suck and fuck each other 6 ways from Sunday.

Rinse and repeat for the next three years.
posted by papakwanz at 12:28 PM on November 4, 2006

By the way... what the FUCK was up with that video that delmoi posted? That was some weird shit.
posted by papakwanz at 12:29 PM on November 4, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: Here's a man with obvious weaknesses, which govern him to the point of hiring a "massage therapist" who is obviously a prostitute and buying drugs repeatedly. And, at the point where is is most likely to give in to his weakness, he shows a degree of willpower that he didn't have just a few minutes before. And not just once, but repeatedly - he's not going to leave voicemails, etc, the first time.

Perhaps you don't have much familiarity with how some Christians experience temptation and sin. I've had this kind of experience with pornography in the past. When I go into "dialoguing with temptation" mode, I'll do things like download pornography and then feel guilty and delete it without looking at it, or look at it furtively but not long enough to really see anything and then feel guilty and delete it. It seems completely plausible to me that Ted would be tempted to have gay sex, and would repeatedly go right up to the line of doing it but then not actually do it--and that he might return to that point again and again.

What I am saying here isn't that he shows willpower at one point that he lacked earlier. Instead, as he's moving toward crossing the line, he keeps telling himself that he's not really going to do anything bad, that he really just needs a massage, and that the massage guy just happens to be a flaming homosexual, and so on. But actually having mansex with the guy would require that he admit to himself what he's actually been doing all along, and he can't bring himself to do that.

I'm ready to believe Ted lied if there's good evidence that he lied, but so far his story seems plausible to me. It's not pretty, and it certainly involves him having done things that are serious sins. (Deliberately putting yourself in a situation where you are playing around with the temptation to serious sin is itself a serious sin.) But other than the fact that you all hate the guy, I don't see why everyone is so eager to say he has lied. Jones is the one who didn't pass a polygraph.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:38 PM on November 4, 2006

Thanks, ThePinkSuperhero, for the link. It's frustrating, because the article only says "He also had said he had never met the man making the accusation." Why didn't they include a quote for that? What did he actually say? If he really lied at first, and has now said something that contradicted what he said earlier, why hasn't he already apologized for having lied earlier? (I would have thought that would be the first thing he'd have apologized for.)

Can anyone provide a link that gives a quote in which Haggard denied having met the man making the accusation?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:44 PM on November 4, 2006

He has lied about every single thing, from knowing the guy, to meeting with him repeatedly and why, to buying meth (which he also did repeatedly), to not using the meth, ...

He lied, then it came out that it was a lie, then he changes his story and lies again, then it came out that that was a lie, then he admits to his Church board that some is true, but it's not made public...
posted by amberglow at 12:54 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "I'm ready to believe Ted lied if there's good evidence that he lied,"

Dude. There is video evidence of him lying. Every time some new evidence comes to light, he changes his story. What part of that do you not understand?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:55 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping Thomist: I also remember Haggard saying initially that he had never met Jones. Also, the general feeling is that Jones failed the polygraph because he was stressed, not because he was making the whole thing up. The person who administered the polygraph (which are hardly infallible) wanted to try again next week, once Jones was rested.

Also, flirting with temptation by downloading porn is a private, individual act; actual hands on paid contact with another human being is quite different.
posted by jokeefe at 12:59 PM on November 4, 2006

I've had this kind of experience with pornography in the past. When I go into "dialoguing with temptation" mode, I'll do things like download pornography and then feel guilty and delete it without looking at it, or look at it furtively but not long enough to really see anything and then feel guilty and delete it.

See, this is one of the saddest and, frankly, most pathological things I have ever read.

With all the horror, sorrow and suffering there is in this world, you have nothing better to do than play little approach-and-avoid mindgames with yourself? Simply to demonstrate your ability to avoid temptation?

What an unbearably tragic waste of human possibility.
posted by adamgreenfield at 1:00 PM on November 4, 2006

adamgreenfield: With all the horror, sorrow and suffering there is in this world, you have nothing better to do than play little approach-and-avoid mindgames with yourself? Simply to demonstrate your ability to avoid temptation?

Huh? I wasn't bragging that I was avoiding temptation. Those were examples of me giving in to temptation while deluding myself that I wasn't doing anything wrong. Yes, it is sad. Sin is sad.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:04 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm ready to believe Ted lied if there's good evidence that he lied, but so far his story seems plausible to me.

What in the hell kind of proof do you need? Oral sex from the guy? Or would you be able to rationalize and deny that as well?
posted by loquacious at 1:06 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: There is video evidence of him lying. Every time some new evidence comes to light, he changes his story.

Could you give me a clear example of that? So far all I've seen is a description in the NY TImes that said earlier he had denied knowing the guy, but I haven't been able to find an actual quote to that effect. I have seen an early interview in which Haggard denied having a gay relationship with Jones or with anyone, but I haven't seen a quote in which he says he didn't know Jones. And I haven't heard anyone suggest any other contradictions. Please just give me some quotes where he said one thing and then later contradicted it. I'm ready to believe it, I just haven't seen it yet.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:08 PM on November 4, 2006

jokeefe: I also remember Haggard saying initially that he had never met Jones.

So maybe you could find me a quote where he said that?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:10 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm ready to believe Ted lied if there's good evidence that he lied, but so far his story seems plausible to me.

You believe that he bought meth but didn't use it? That's a little absurd. As for the gay stuff, who knows? maybe the guy did just get a massage, but it seems pretty unlikely to me.

I don't see why everyone is so eager to say he has lied. Jones is the one who didn't pass a polygraph.

Polygraphs = garbage.
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM on November 4, 2006

loquacious: What in the hell kind of proof do you need?

One of the following would do nicely:

(1) quotes in which he contradicts earlier quotes.

(2) evidence that Jones is telling the truth about having had sex with Haggard, such as a passed polygraph

(3) quotes in which Haggard says something demonstrably false
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:13 PM on November 4, 2006

delmoi: You believe that he bought meth but didn't use it? That's a little absurd.

How so? I can easily see myself doing that if I became tempted to use meth, and allowed myself to flirt with that temptation to the point of taking steps like buying it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:16 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping: ...The admissions -- after Haggard's earlier denials that he even knew Jones -- resonated among America's evangelicals and Christian leaders. ...

and on that page on the left, a video link to: Pastor changes story in scandal (3:35)
posted by amberglow at 1:16 PM on November 4, 2006

"or look at it furtively but not long enough to really see anything and then feel guilty and delete it."

Oh my. This just keeps getting better.
posted by 2sheets at 1:18 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping, you have 1, and 3...and you'll have testimony in court from Jones very soon, since (From the top of that very page)
• NEW: Denver police will look into "crimes that may have been committed"
posted by amberglow at 1:19 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm suddenly reminded of THIS. (youtube)

Most applicable starting at the 2:52 mark.
posted by General Zubon at 1:19 PM on November 4, 2006

fucking cnn doesn't support linux.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:23 PM on November 4, 2006

also, and very important--Mike Jones will definitely be in jail if he's lying because Haggard already said he bought meth from him (which Jones also says is not true--he hooked Haggard up with someone else). And Jones really gains nothing by telling the truth either.
posted by amberglow at 1:25 PM on November 4, 2006

amberglow: after Haggard's earlier denials that he even knew Jones

well, I can't see the video, but does he actually say he does not know Jones? The story only says that he said it, but doesn't give a quote.

And what do you think Haggard said that is demonstrably false?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:26 PM on November 4, 2006

We know that either Haggard is lying about having bought meth from Jones, or Jones is lying about not having sold it to Haggard.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:28 PM on November 4, 2006

search youtube or Crooks and liars--there's video of him giving an interview on Wednesday saying he's never met the guy.
posted by amberglow at 1:28 PM on November 4, 2006

[H]as consistently denied the sex accusation...He also had said he had never met the man making the accusation.

New York Times, 11/03/06
posted by applemeat at 1:28 PM on November 4, 2006

Could it be that by "homosexual sex" he only understands taking it up the brownhole, and he's trying a "Clinton" on us?

A lot of "straight" guys figure they're not gay because they don't get fucked by other guys, no matter how many other guys they fuck up the ass.

Perhaps you don't have much familiarity with how some Christians experience temptation and sin.

Perhaps not. And, frankly, I don't want to. Don't take this personally, I guess, but you sound like you have some serious problems. Look at the porn, don't look at the porn, whatever - agonizing over the porn is worse than either. For the sake of the general psychological health of the world, I can only hope that you are not representative of most Christians, with your absurd legalistic views of right and wrong and sin.

The gay hooker he hired said this was going on for three years. If he was going to lie, why come up with some outrageous length of time? All he'd have to do is say he'd been with Ted once or twice. And if Ted did hire him repeatedly over three years, it stretches credulity beyond its limit to expect that not once did they actually have some sort of sexual contact or that Ted didn't use the meth he bought.

I think you're wasting your time trying to come up with some contorted explanation of how he hired a hooker and bought meth, but didn't have sex or use drugs.

fucking cnn doesn't support linux.

[insert Christian self-flagellation joke here]
posted by me & my monkey at 1:31 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist:

Here is a page with the breaking allegations; watch the Nov. 1 interview under "Additional Resources". He says "I do not know Mike Jones" around 1:15 in.
posted by Upton O'Good at 1:38 PM on November 4, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: The gay hooker he hired said this was going on for three years. If he was going to lie, why come up with some outrageous length of time? All he'd have to do is say he'd been with Ted once or twice. And if Ted did hire him repeatedly over three years, it stretches credulity beyond its limit to expect that not once did they actually have some sort of sexual contact or that Ted didn't use the meth he bought.

That's a pretty good argument, and I agree that if we're talking about a period of years, that story I told isn't plausible. It'll be interesting to see if that part of Jones's story holds up.

Here's one reason to come up with an outrageous lie: the story only has to hold until Tuesday.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:39 PM on November 4, 2006

OMFG: his wife and kids were in the car when Haggard gave the more recent tv interview --...The interview Haggard gave yesterday, the one with his poor wife watching where he talking about buying crystal meth and only getting a massage from the gay hooker, his poor kids were sitting in the back seat the entire time. And before anyone criticizes the reporter, the journalist asked Haggard if he wanted to step out of the car for a second to do the interview and he said no. He chose to do it in front of his kids.
posted by amberglow at 1:39 PM on November 4, 2006

Here's one reason to come up with an outrageous lie: the story only has to hold until Tuesday.

At the risk of possibly heavy jailtime? Get real.
posted by amberglow at 1:46 PM on November 4, 2006

Amberglow, even I am shocked at that.

His poor wife and kids. They don't deserve this.
posted by konolia at 1:49 PM on November 4, 2006

Upton O'Good, I can't get that file to play, but I'll believe you if you say that he says the words "I do not know Mike Jones". Assuming that's what he said, he's in very deep shit, because he's shown that he's willing to lie, and you can't trust what he says. I have to say it surprises me that he would lie; I'd have expected him to say things that are true but misleading. But if he actually lied, as you say, he's going to have a serious credibility problem with his supporters.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:02 PM on November 4, 2006

his church just threw him the hell out--so much for that forgiveness thing, huh?
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on November 4, 2006

The comment rate here seems to be dropping a little, you comtemptible slackers.

Prepare the drums..

.....RAMMING SPEED!!
posted by econous at 2:12 PM on November 4, 2006

When I go into "dialoguing with temptation" mode

Bloody hell - 800-odd posts, but it was it worth it for this. I now have a new favourite euphemism for the timeless act of self-pleasure.

"What took you so long in there?"

"Oh, I was just, you know, 'dialoguing with temptation.'"

Or like this:

"Man, I can't believe I wasted half the afternoon on that long-ass MeFi thread. It was nothin' but dialoguing with temptation from the first post."
posted by gompa at 2:13 PM on November 4, 2006

gompa, sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't masturbated in about 20 years. I wasn't using "dialoguing with temptation" as a euphemism for masturbation.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:18 PM on November 4, 2006

his church just threw him the hell out

Is that a new development? Or just a comment on the situation as a whole, amberglow?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:20 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

The Jesus supported Slavery.

Just say'n.
posted by tkchrist at 2:23 PM on November 4, 2006

CNN on tv as Breaking News just now
posted by amberglow at 2:29 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "he's in very deep shit, because he's shown that he's willing to lie, and you can't trust what he says"

This is news? People have been telling you this since yesterday.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:31 PM on November 4, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, I hadn't realized that he said he did not know Jones. I still haven't seen the quote, but I trust that it's in the interview Upton O'Good linked to, and enough articles have referred to it. I'm surprised I haven't seen the quote in print in any article.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:35 PM on November 4, 2006

Arguing scripture and why people believe as they do is folly-- no-one's mind is going to be changed. Well, it could happen, but I doubt it. Blind faith is a pretty strong coping mechanism.

I do understand trying to make others understand that when their faith bleeds out into the political world, it's potentially hurting people-- if you think group X is bad or sinful, and it looks like they might enjoy the rights you do, you've GOT to put a stop to it, for otherwise it legitimizes their sinful lifestyle and therein lies the collapse of Western Civilization, etc. This directly affects those that are just trying to live the same comfortable and happy life that you are, your belief in their Hell-destination notwithstanding. Get your own affairs in order, and stay out of everyone else's.

Let's understand though, that the beliefs themselves aren't worth arguing. Some people are going to hate openly, others are going to couch their hate in butterflies and rainbows. Some people don't hate at all, and are simply misguided or ignorant, they pick and choose texts to justify what they think they are supposed to believe; but it is my experience that you can show them other texts that refute what they say, and it doesn't matter a lick-- they're going to believe what's comfortable. Doctrine is comfortable. Consistency is comfortable. Ostracizing the Other is comfortable.

Listen, this conversation would be going in a totally different direction if konolia or peeping_Thomist had been brought up in, say, India. The argument would be all about quoting the Laws of Manu and praying to Ganesh, or admonitions to chant the Vedas and feed the ritual fire with ghee. As it is, they are products of their belief systems, and there's no changing that; it's in many ways epidemiological.

side note to peeping_Thomist: I do admire your giving Haggard the benefit of the doubt-- I'm much more cynical by orders of magnitude.
posted by exlotuseater at 2:38 PM on November 4, 2006

Wow, I see it on CNN.com right now, as a news alert:
The Rev. Ted Haggard has been forced out as pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church, whose board cited his "sexually immoral conduct."
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:40 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Here's one reason to come up with an outrageous lie: the story only has to hold until Tuesday.

The White House is already distancing themselves from him: see about half way down the page here (CNN link).
posted by jokeefe at 2:40 PM on November 4, 2006

jonmc: "my experiences with self-proclaimed born-agains has been exactly the opposite. most of the ones I've known have been people who were in desperate straits due to addiction abuse or other crises . . ."

Hear the New Life Church Band sing "Desperation,"(mp3), apparently a cornerstone concept of Pastor Ted's theology. Then have a look at the New Life Church website and tell me how "desperate" they all seem.

Lame at web design, yes. "Desperate," hardly.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:42 PM on November 4, 2006

I wonder if what is happening to Haggard is Enantiodromia, which is when the unconscious mind acts out against the conscious minds wishes...kinda like restoring equilibrium to an unbalanced existence. Maybe this is a synchronistic event to our current political landscape?
A jungian approach...
posted by alteredcarbon at 2:45 PM on November 4, 2006

They actually said "sexually immoral?" Then he's either admitted it, or someone else has come forward.

I'm sure Jesus will forgive my unreasonable pleaure in all this.
posted by jokeefe at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2006

And now it's on the AP: Evangelical Leader Resigning From Church. Sexually immoral conduct? Does that mean he DID have sexual relations with Jones, or are they counting the "massage" as sexually immoral?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:46 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Peeping_Thom, what is painfully obvious is that you haven't read any of the news links or looked at any of the videos that people have been posting in this thread since it started. All the evidence you've asked for has already been given, but then you play that lazy and mainpulative game of "Well, show me the exact quotes where this Jesus-fearing man has technically lied" and you go through all of these contortive processes to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
posted by mijuta at 2:47 PM on November 4, 2006

I think it means he definitely had sex with that guy, TPS--massage is not sexually immoral in itself. At least he didn't lie to his church--that's something.
posted by amberglow at 2:53 PM on November 4, 2006

"The White House is already distancing themselves from him: see about half way down the page here (CNN link)."

Via Americablog:
In spite of the White House's odd denials yesterday that they had any real contacts with evangelical leader Ted Haggard, the guy who bought crystal meth and repeated massages from a gay hooker, the Rocky Mountain News details just how extensive Haggard's contacts really were with the Bush White House.

Then again, the Bush White House also told us they never had many contacts with Jack Abramoff - and then we found out there were hundreds.
posted by mijuta at 2:54 PM on November 4, 2006

jokeefe: They actually said "sexually immoral?" Then he's either admitted it, or someone else has come forward.

Even on the "plausible story" I gave earlier, what he did was a case of serious sexual immorality (as has also been true those times when I have downloaded pornography but then deleted it without watching it). Christians try to take seriously Christ's words about "lust in the heart". Committing adultery is wrong, and so is flirting at length with the temptation to commit adultery.

From the press release: A letter of explanation and apology by Pastor Haggard as well as a word of encouragement from Gayle Haggard will be read in the 9:00 and 11:00 service of New Life Church.

I'll bet he comes clean in this letter. He'll have to address the issue of his lying, and make clear exactly what was true and what was not in what he said earlier.

All I know about meth is the photos of ravaged faces and bodies you see in newspapers. Can a person be addicted to meth and still function at a high level like he has been? (I associate meth with trailer parks, not high-powered movers and shakers.) Wonder if he's going to say the drugs were a big part of it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:54 PM on November 4, 2006

... Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct. ...A letter of explanation and apology by Pastor Haggard as well as a word of encouragement from Gayle Haggard will be read in the 9:00 and 11:00 service of New Life Church.

They don't mention the drugs at all.
posted by amberglow at 2:57 PM on November 4, 2006

mijuta, I can't play the video in which apparently he says he did not know Jones, and so far as I've noticed, none of the articles printed those words. What's wrong with giving people the benefit of the doubt? It's not like I am a supporter of this guy...I think his brand of Christianity is a disaster.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:58 PM on November 4, 2006

"Hey--that's the guy from...from my penis!"
Jimmy Kimmel's summary of the events.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 3:00 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist opines "I missed that. Could you point me to where he said he didn't know Jones?"

There you are. CNN clip, the denial comes at about 1:15. You're welcome.
posted by clevershark at 3:11 PM on November 4, 2006

I was just thinking about how sad it is that Haggard and his family have to through such a public "fall from grace." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fundie hyopcrisy being smacked down at any turn--especially when it comes to their painfully distorted obsession with homosexuality. But still, this will be very painful for them.

And I am equally saddened that Haggard is a closeted gay man whose shame and self-hatred went to such great lengths that he disguised himself as a fundie preacher, trying to stave off the fundie-created demons by becoming a fundie himself.

The really sad thing about all of this is that the fundies will demonize homosexuality even further, instead of realizing that THEY are the ones who have created this problem.

This commentary from Digby nails it on the head--the last three paragraphs in particular are brilliant:

A Message From On High

by tristero

I came across this interesting editorial in The Christian Post on what the National Associations of Evangelicals (NAE) should do now that their president, Ted Haggard, has been exposed as a hypocrite.

First of all, what is the NAE?

The National Association of Evangelicals is a group that is 30-million strong with over 50 years of history. However, in the last few years, its headquarters has moved to an office within Haggard’s New Life Community Church with its staffers fully employed by the church.

Oops.

Most of the editorial consists of practical advice for what the NAE should do now, like move out of Haggard's megachurch, and elect a temporary president, which assumes they can find a leading christianist who isn't involved in a sex scandal or batshit crazy like Pat Robertson. Or, like Tim LaHaye, too rich to bother. But I digress.

Sprinkled throughout the editorial, you get lines like these:

...the situation in its entirety is a stark reminder of man’s sinfulness and a dark exposure of how deeply the sin of homosexuality has taken root in the American society. ...now would be the time for the Evangelical community look within its own walls and battle against the culture of sin that looms before the Church of Christ...

...fighting more adamantly against the culture of sin...
Get it? It's the "culture of sin" - that's liberals to you - that done did in poor Ted Haggard and kicked the 30-million strong NAE in the teabags. (And right around now, if you haven't been following the American theocracy movement closely, you should be saying to yourself: "A 30 million strong evangelical group! Holy fucking shit!!")

And then the editorial closes with a common invocation of Jesus, who rules over us sinners. Admittedly, we're not really supposed to read the words so much as feel the goodness and strength that comes whenever Jesus is mentioned with love. But let's read it anyway:

After all, no matter how sensationalized the reports and how deep the sin, it is Christ – not Ted Haggard – who is the head of this Church.

If that is so, that "Christ is the head of this Church," then Christ has just sent his Church - through the travails of Ted Haggard - an unequivocal message to stop bashing and obsessing over gays. And stop forcing them to hide in closets.

Since Haggard before his fall was consumed with making marriage for certain Americans constitutionally illegal, Christ now is telling evangelicals to behave with mercy and grace towards gays, to stop obsessing over the gender of two people who love each other, but to accept them, to love them.

And if I were a member of "this Church," I'd very much attend to this message Christ has sent our way.
posted by mijuta at 3:16 PM on November 4, 2006

thanks, clevershark. Yep, he's in serious trouble with his supporters. Of course that would be true even if the plausible story I gave earlier is true, but the lying makes it much more difficult to heal the trust wound he has created.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:17 PM on November 4, 2006

mijuta: Christ has just sent his Church - through the travails of Ted Haggard - an unequivocal message to stop bashing and obsessing over gays. And stop forcing them to hide in closets.

My dictionary says "unequivocal" means "admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion." The idea that the "message" of these events is unequivocal is unequivocally wrong.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:26 PM on November 4, 2006

Yea, this isn't God sending anyone a message; this is just one human being messing up, same as the rest of us do every single day. We certainly can learn lessons from it, though.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:32 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Can a person be addicted to meth and still function at a high level like he has been?
Yes. Trust me, I know that it can be done.
posted by bunglin jones at 3:34 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "heal the trust wound he has created."

Heal the trust wound?

What about his preaching against gays? What about the 'demons of gay perversion'? What about the countless numbers of people who, because of Haggert & konolia and their ilk, feel ashamed and guilty?

What about the people who are forced to hide because of this shit?

What about the fact that gay and lesbian teenagers are several orders of magnitude more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts?

And you're worried about the trust he has lost from his followers?

Have you ever actually read what Christ preached? Things like love. Feeding and clothing the poor. he never said anything about homosexuality, evidenced by the fact that konolia cannot come up with one single thing that the man himself said.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:48 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

All I know about meth is the photos of ravaged faces and bodies you see in newspapers. Can a person be addicted to meth and still function at a high level like he has been? (I associate meth with trailer parks, not high-powered movers and shakers.) Wonder if he's going to say the drugs were a big part of it.

He doesn't strike me as an "addict" in the sense that you're describing--someone who's using on a frequent, habitual basis. From the voicemail:

"Hi Mike, this is Art. Hey, I was just calling to see if we could get any more. Either $100 or $200 supply. And I could pick it up really anytime I could get it tomorrow or we could wait till next week sometime and so I also wanted to get your address. I could send you some money for inventory but that's probably not working, so if you have it then go ahead and get what you can and I may buzz up there later today, but I doubt your schedule would allow that unless you have some in the house. Okay, I'll check in with you later. Thanks a lot, bye."

That sounds to me like someone who's used before, likes it, has fun doing it, but doesn't need it. He's not going crazy because he hasn't gotten his "stuff." He's probably perfectly functional, if you ignore all the pathological self-loathing closeted gay stuff.
posted by EarBucket at 3:49 PM on November 4, 2006

Well, my son just called. He and a friend of his will be going to New Life tomorrow to see for themselves what happens.
posted by konolia at 3:50 PM on November 4, 2006

James Alison is one of best Christian writers out there and just happens to also be gay. Konolia you really need to check him out for a much different and very Christian perspective on things.

One of the very few chapters/verses that some Christians use to scapegoat gay people is Romans 1. In this article Mr. Alison quite clearly shows that Romans 1 says absolutely nothing about homosexuality and in fact Paul speaking about something much more important.

Other articles include:
Is it ethical to be Catholic? – Queer perspectives

Following the still small voice: Experience, truth and argument as lived by Catholics around the gay issue

Collapsing the closet in the house of God: Opening the door on gay/straight issues

Worship in a violent world

Some thoughts on the Atonement

posted by Buck Eschaton at 3:51 PM on November 4, 2006

Interesting; do report back, konolia. I'd be interested if there will be more or less people then usual (which your son wouldn't know, but maybe they'll be so many people they'll have to turn folks away), and if any security methods will be in place.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:52 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Peeping_Thom: "My dictionary says "unequivocal" means "admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion." The idea that the "message" of these events is unequivocal is unequivocally wrong."

Yeah, I knew you'd be able to find a way to avoid the obvious message of this by focusing on the technicality of something minor.
posted by mijuta at 3:52 PM on November 4, 2006

Dear quonsar, konolia, and other extreme theists:

I am not broken. I've made some mistakes and paid the consequences. I have friends who've made mistakes and paid the consquences. However, I've not made millions of dollars preaching at people as to how they should live their lives, and then done exactly what I was telling them not to do. I have never been arrested. I have never fucked or tried to fuck a kid.

Sorry you and so many people in your lives have done despicable things, but just because you've had the sorry luck to fuck up your own lives or have close relations who've fucked up their's, please don't assume that all humans are bad and need big-skygod-daddie-pop to come down and make up for it.

Seriously. I'm an adult capable of having free will and facing up to the consequences of bad decisions I might make. I'm also capable of joy, love, and excitement when things go well, whether it's because I made it happen, or through simple random chance.

Please stop basing your moral outlook on your own inadequcies, delusions, and shortcomings. Live your lives the way you choose to, but realize that most of the world struggles just as mightily with life, but we don't throw up our arms at the first sign of trouble and wait for big-skygod-daddie-pop to help us. Nor do we actively foment discord through hypocrisy, hatefulness, bigotry, or the direct attempt to cause pain to others who are different than us.

Do us a favor and read your New Testament again.
posted by bardic at 3:56 PM on November 4, 2006

pinksuperhero writes: Yea, this isn't God sending anyone a message; this is just one human being messing up, same as the rest of us do every single day. We certainly can learn lessons from it, though.

No. Wrong. Idiotic. This is a man who made a life and living off of his moralizing. Qualitative difference between him and the rest of the world.
posted by bardic at 3:59 PM on November 4, 2006

That Kimmel clip was funny, but it makes me feel worse for the guy. He's in over his head now, why would he keep giving interviews? Poor guy and poor his family.

Of course, I feel worse that he's made a career of demonizing and trying to deny rights to millions of gay Americans, but still, I can't help but feel bad for the guy.
posted by ibmcginty at 3:59 PM on November 4, 2006

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

Have you got that yet, konolia?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:00 PM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

ThePinkSuperhero, he's visited there before so he may very well have some idea-my guess is the place will be packed (they do have multiple services-five I think-so I imagine everyone who really wants to be there will manage it.)

One bit of trivia-the fellow who is interim pastor-his wife just had a baby this past Thursday.
posted by konolia at 4:02 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm beginning to think that all republicans are gay.
posted by stavrogin at 4:13 PM on November 4, 2006

How's your vaunted gaydar on the new one Konolia? Because if it didn't go off, we can safely assume to likes to slobber on cock.
posted by bardic at 4:15 PM on November 4, 2006

Bardic, he spoke at my graduation this past June. He's metro-but according to my son so is most of Colorado Springs. As noted upthread his wife just had a baby fwiw.
posted by konolia at 4:26 PM on November 4, 2006

The comment rate here seems to be dropping a little, you comtemptible slackers.

Prepare the drums..

.....RAMMING SPEED!!

I'm saving my 10,000th comment for tuesday.
posted by delmoi at 4:32 PM on November 4, 2006

Ted has five kids. And we know for a fact that he likes to get massages and buy drugs from gay prostitutes. It's more than likely he likes to fuck them or get fucked by them.
posted by bardic at 4:32 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic: I am not broken.

I used to think that about myself, when I was an atheist. Eventually it became clear to me that I was in fact broken. I remember thinking when I was young that religion is a crutch for weak people. Eventually I came to see I was one of them.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:33 PM on November 4, 2006

stavrogin: I'm beginning to think that all republicans are gay.

Me too! Today I got a political ad in the mail encouraging me to vote for "firm, fair republican judges".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:35 PM on November 4, 2006

Bully for you. Please stop inflicting your neuroses on the rest of us. Go fuck your wife's ass or something since you enjoy it so much, apparently.
posted by bardic at 4:37 PM on November 4, 2006

What bardic said. All sin is local.
posted by adamgreenfield at 4:42 PM on November 4, 2006

"I have to say it surprises me that he would lie; I'd have expected him to say things that are true but misleading."

Man, this thread just keeps on giving.

"I haven't masturbated in about 20 years"

Ok, stop it now, you're killing me.

"As noted upthread his wife just had a baby fwiw."

THE STUPID - IT BUUUUURNS
posted by 2sheets at 4:44 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

thanks for those, Buck--in many ways i think Catholics have it easier than Fundamentalists and Evangelicals and those people--there's a long and strong history of Catholics not following all the laws to the letter, especially when it comes to sex and associated issues.
posted by amberglow at 4:46 PM on November 4, 2006

q, when did Jesus crawl up your ass and start to fester? what's up?
posted by amberglow at 4:47 PM on November 4, 2006

Oh, Haggard's apology/statement will not clear anything up, i bet--there'll be tons of families there and if he doesn't care about talking in front of his kids, other people do.
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on November 4, 2006

Awwww, poor Jesus. Let him out!
posted by Hildegarde at 5:05 PM on November 4, 2006

Ok, a 900-post thread. Took me a while to work my way here to the end. There have been plenty of occasions where I wanted to jump in. Haven’t much seen the need, until I got to Peeping Thomist’s dazzling remark that I have to say it surprises me that he would lie

Dude! Haggard makes a good living by telling the credulous that he has An Invisible Friend up in the Sky who very much wants you to hate gays. Oh, my invisible friend would like it if you voted to end taxes on rich people.

Haggard’s ENTIRE EXISTENCE has been devoted to nothing BUT propagating untruths.

And you have a hard time believing that Haggard would LIE?

Man, how naive ARE you?
posted by AsYouKnow Bob at 5:07 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

What Thomist and konolia and their like remind me of, more than anything else, are those pathetic CP members who kept trying to justify and recuperate Soviet behavior, even after '56, after Prague, after Solzhenitsyn. The layers and layers of armoring and the underlying desperation to make the facts fit the narrative are one and the same.

Bluntly: is there any malfeasance from your icons that you wouldn't be willing to rationalize, attempt to justify, or excuse away? At what point do you simply admit that you have been wrong to trust them, and that they've taken you for a ride?
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:08 PM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

Oh, also: I haven't masturbated in about 20 years:

That explains everything. I'm not all that fond of Wilhelm Reich, but you can't deny he had an insight or two somewhere along the way.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:14 PM on November 4, 2006

This just in:

God couldn't care less what you do.
We're all alone, so best we just try to love each other.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:20 PM on November 4, 2006 [3 favorites]

amberglow: there'll be tons of families there

mega-churches typically put the kids in ultra-organized sunday school classes. The pews are usually full of adults. Not like us Catholics, who fill the pews with our embarrassing kids.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:27 PM on November 4, 2006

Amen.
posted by bardic at 5:28 PM on November 4, 2006

There's a very interesting bit at 8:15 on this video when Dawkins is about to leave Haggard's church. Haggard drives up to Dawkins and the film crew and says, (Dawkins paraphrasing):

"Get off my land immediately. I'll have you thrown in jail. I'll..seize your film."

Dawkins: "And he then said a very curious thing. He said, 'You called my children animals'..."

It's not clear whether Dawkins had been talking about evolution to some of the children present, or whether he was talking to adults and Haggard is referring to his congregation as children, but it is, as Dawkins says, curious.

Yet earlier in that video Haggard says he follows the "scientific method", and he condemns Dawkins for being "arrogant".
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:28 PM on November 4, 2006

(to Meatbomb)
posted by bardic at 5:29 PM on November 4, 2006

This just in. New Life ousts Haggard for "sexually immoral conduct."
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:30 PM on November 4, 2006

Eventually it became clear to me that I was in fact broken. I remember thinking when I was young that religion is a crutch for weak people. Eventually I came to see I was one of them.


AWESOME. You admit it. Weak and broke. We all agree on something.

And through the example in this thread we can STILL see how religion is a crutch for weak, broken, people.

Problem is... it's a broken crutch.
posted by tkchrist at 5:39 PM on November 4, 2006

Oh, and peeping_Thomist, Adobe makes a Flash plug-in for Linux. What you'll want to do is install the Flash 7 player, then grab the Flash 9 beta and replace the libflashplayer.so file in your firefox/plugins folder -- Flash 9 solves the audio synchronization issue.
posted by clevershark at 5:39 PM on November 4, 2006

AsYouKnow_Bob: Haggard’s ENTIRE EXISTENCE has been devoted to nothing BUT propagating untruths. And you have a hard time believing that Haggard would LIE?

Yeah. I expect that he's torn up about it right now, and that having lied is one of the things he's going to talk about in his letter. Jesus said "let your yes be yes and your no be no," and Ted hasn't been doing that in the past few days. (Yes, I know he's been lying in a fashion the past however-long-he's-been-cruising, but that's different from explicit lying where someone asks you a direct question and you lie in response.) Again, speaking as someone who knows what it feels like to struggle as a Christian with sexual sin, I can tell you that when there's a disconnect between what you are saying and doing as a Christian, you hope that no one asks you a direct question, because you don't want to lie. You want to pretend that things in your life are the way they appear on the surface. I've never directly lied in response to a question about my own sins, but I have been evasive at times, and I know how uncomfortable that is. I imagine I'd feel worse about lying to my wife about sexual sin than I would about the offense itself. Outright lying is something really hard to square with one's Christian faith, and I assume (don't yet have any reason to doubt) that Ted's faith is sincere. We'll see what his apology looks like. If he doesn't forthrightly confront the issue about lying, that will be a very bad sign.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:41 PM on November 4, 2006

Unsolicited (and probably obvious) advice to dirtynumbangelboy, bardic, mijuta, et al.:

Your eloquent disgust, impassioned vilification, your devastating bunker-busting logic bombs, and all your scathing arpeggiated screeds are but sweet smoking fuel to theists. You're familiar with hot air balloons? The more pure, the more heated your outrage, the higher they will rise, up up to the blessed empyrean of thinner and thinner rationales and (most important) absolutely no responsibility.

Beneath the fustian, their theology has always and only, fundamentally, been argumentum ad verecundiam — at least since the Milvian Bridge fireworks show — and you can't argue that, God knows.

Lash on, but don't be surprised if they simply quiver, whimper, and eagerly proffer their flayed flesh for further exculpating excoriation.

I loves me some alliteration, O yes.
posted by Haruspex at 5:43 PM on November 4, 2006

clevershark, I've had the Flash 9 beta since it came out. CNN requires the no-way-in-hell-I'll-ever-use-it-even-if-it-becomes-available-on-Linux windows media player. Thanks, though.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:43 PM on November 4, 2006

What he should do is go to jail. Buying drugs and consorting with prostitutes ain't just immoral, they're illegal.

But Ted's special Jesus-shield might protect him from the consequences that the rest of us would face (and the fact that he's got tons of money from his "free market" preaching).

Honestly peeping_Thomist, you make it sound like he jay-walked or something. He lied, he's a hypocrite, and he broke the freakin' law. How many benefits of the doubt are you going to give this adulterous scumbag?
posted by bardic at 5:49 PM on November 4, 2006

Haruspex writes "Unsolicited (and probably obvious) advice to dirtynumbangelboy, bardic, mijuta, et al.:"

That's nice and all, but why do you assume that I'm an atheist?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:49 PM on November 4, 2006

reading the CNN link Joey Michaels just posted, it's at once surprising and totally expected that the only person quoted in the article to mention hypocrisy is Jones.

Rev. Ross Parsley says the church isn't a man or building or anything else...

the White House says he's only been there one or two times, and only occasionally sang on the horn---thus is not important at all.

James Dobson says Haggard is still a friend, and that he'll suffer harsh consequences (presumably in hell).

nowhere have I seen a call to renewed effort towards honest living, only harsh attempts to distance and strand Haggard. the exception to this is Haggard's masseuse, Mike Jones, who says

"You can't put yourself in the position he was in and want respect and people to follow your words when you're actually doing the opposite behind their backs,"
posted by carsonb at 5:52 PM on November 4, 2006

I can tell you that when there's a disconnect between what you are saying and doing as a Christian, you hope that no one asks you a direct question, because you don't want to lie...

You wouldn't be presumptuous enough to imply that Christians have a monopoly on this feeling, would you, peeping_Thomist? It kinda sounds like a backhanded holier than thou.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 5:53 PM on November 4, 2006

Haruspex, you get points for citing Milvian Bridge. And your point is well-taken on this end.
posted by bardic at 5:53 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic: What he should do is go to jail. Buying drugs and consorting with prostitutes ain't just immoral, they're illegal.

People who buy small quantities of drugs don't typically go to jail. People who "consort with prostitutes" typically don't have much happen to them other than sometimes getting their photos in the newspaper when there's a crackdown. I guess the police will look into this, and who knows what'll come of it, but I have to say, you don't strike me as a strong "war on drugs and vice" kind of guy. Or are you making a joke along the lines that I, given what you think I should think about such things, should want him to go to jail? I think our drug laws are crazy, and even St. Augustine argued that there are times when a people are so depraved that it is better not to outlaw prostitution. Surely we live in such times.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:57 PM on November 4, 2006

Barry McGuire (singer of Eve of Destruction, among others), on his his pre-conversion to Christianity:

"Jesus was groovy! I wanted to be like him! I just didn't wanna be like all those christians!
posted by The Deej at 5:58 PM on November 4, 2006

...assume that I'm an atheist?

dnab, I don't assume anything of the sort. But your (form of) Divinity is probably not State-sanctioned (unlike Ted's, and thus my Constantine reference), and until that happens, you'll be endlessly beleaguered by those who claim that earthly rule reflects a heavenly mandate.
posted by Haruspex at 5:58 PM on November 4, 2006

weapons-grade_pandemonium, no, that wasn't what I had in mind. I was just trying to relate it specifically to Haggard being a Christian, and my own experience as a Christian who sins. I honestly don't know how everyone else thinks about truth-telling. I've talked to lots of people who (apparently sincerely) think nothing about lying right in people's faces. I don't mean this as a criticism, that's just what they say: "When you can only get what you want by lying, you lie." I've certainly known many non-religious people who care a great deal about truth-telling. My point wasn't about Christians caring more about telling the truth than other people, only that Christians do care a lot about truth-telling. Sorry if it sounded presumptuous.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:03 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: People who buy small quantities of drugs don't typically go to jail. People who "consort with prostitutes" typically don't have much happen to them other than sometimes getting their photos in the newspaper when there's a crackdown.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you're white and middle-class or above in terms of income.
posted by bardic at 6:04 PM on November 4, 2006

Not like us Catholics, who fill the pews with our embarrassing kids.

Yikes, peeping! After you’re provided us all a treatise today about your pathetic porn avoidance/addiction; about your wife’s shapely ass; about your idiosyncratic decrees on which hole you believe the husband should ejaculate into after a steamy session of “anything-goes” marital lovemaking; and after, of course, dissecting for us the supposed doctrinal foundation behind your significant personal and sexual obsessions and dysfunctions, I can scarcely imagine what you might possibly find embarrassing.
posted by applemeat at 6:05 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

bardic, I'm white and middle-class or above in terms of education but not income (in part because of lifestyle choices like having several kids and only having one spouse working).
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:07 PM on November 4, 2006

Wow, judgemental much? I think our drug laws are stupid too, precisely because white people tend to have them enforced much less harshly than, say, a black person would.

My larger point is that you've bent over backwards in this thread to defend an adultrous, hypocritical, deceitful, drug-buying (probably using), demagogue. I think you should pick your fights a little better -- the guy's a scumbag, and you've tried to derail this thread multiple times through tedious forays into simplistic theology and fairly creepy digressions into your own sex life.
posted by bardic at 6:09 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic: you've bent over backwards in this thread to defend an adultrous, hypocritical, deceitful, drug-buying (probably using), demagogue.

Defend? Hardly. Even on the most charitable interpretation (which I've been trying to give), he's been doing things that are seriously wrong.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:16 PM on November 4, 2006

applemeat: idiosyncratic decrees on which hole you believe the husband should ejaculate into

Oh give me a fucking break. Like I came up with the idea that sex is non-arbitrarily linked to babies. You guys crack me up. Feel free to disagree, but to pretend that what I'm saying is "idiosyncratic" (as opposed to what nearly everyone everywhere believed until very recently and nearly everyone most places still believes) is silly.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:20 PM on November 4, 2006

"doing things that are seriously wrong"?

I love it when Christians manage to mince words regarding morality. Kind of a recurring theme these days.
posted by bardic at 6:20 PM on November 4, 2006

My goodness, the things we're learning about peeping_Thomist in this thread!

(in part because of lifestyle choices like having several kids and only having one spouse working).

How many spouses have you got?

And, let me say, if you can afford the luxury of several kids on a single income, I think we can safely say, yes, middle class in all ways.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:22 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic, how is "doing things that are seriously wrong" mincing words?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:25 PM on November 4, 2006

to pretend that what I'm saying is "idiosyncratic" (as opposed to what nearly everyone everywhere believed until very recently and nearly everyone most places still believes) is silly.

It's sort of interesting to watch someone who thinks they're in the majority slowly and painfully realize that they're actually not.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:25 PM on November 4, 2006

Rail at me all you like but the issue is deeper than what is or is not sin. The real issue is that we sin because we are sinners, because we are broken, and we can do nothing in our own strength to change it. Jesus came to rescue us from that.

It breaks my heart that people believe this. All the more so when they choose to believe this and choose an evangel/fundie/Pauline church as their "cure."
posted by five fresh fish at 6:25 PM on November 4, 2006

People who buy small quantities of drugs don't typically go to jail

Get out much? That's exactly who usually goes to jail, and with respect to meth, that includes plenty of (mostly poor) white folks.

I haven't masturbated in about 20 years.
Liar.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:33 PM on November 4, 2006

One reason Jesus had so much of a problem with the Pharisees is that they would never admit they were just as broken, just as sinful, as the rest of humanity. Their sins were more respectable, is all.
posted by konolia at 6:33 PM on November 4, 2006

Ted Haggard is a lying, adultrous, hypocrite. You've parsed this so many ways to soften the blow -- he got caught up in a bad situation, he got in over his head, he's having a crisis of conscience.

Why can't a Christian just come out and say that he's evil?
posted by bardic at 6:35 PM on November 4, 2006

Hildegarde, are you assuming that I thought there were lots of people who read mefi who would agree with me? I know what the state of play is among the audience here, and if you look at my posting history you'll see that I've known for a long time.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:37 PM on November 4, 2006

Pastor Mark Driscoll, referenced in dw's comment earlier in the thread, offers a novel explanation for why even such Godly men are led into temptation:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:37 PM on November 4, 2006

konolia, please read the Bible before you cite it. Jesus' problem with the Pharisees was that they represented an over-reliance upon received law and tradition, as opposed to a living, active faith that loved all people regardless of their gender, their income, or their station in life.
posted by bardic at 6:39 PM on November 4, 2006

fourcheesemac: Liar.

No.

bardic: Why can't a Christian just come out and say that he's evil?

The idea, I guess, would be that he's not like us, who are not evil?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:41 PM on November 4, 2006

Armitage Shanks, that's un-fucking believable.

I know for a fact that Jesus didn't hate on fatties. He did, however, hate those who would use his name and twist his words to his own ends, e.g., much of the leadership of the Evangelical movement in America. Their's will be the hottest place in hell.
posted by bardic at 6:43 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic and others, can we have a moratorium on telling Christians to "read the Bible"? Just assume that we read the Bible, and make whatever point you have to make.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:44 PM on November 4, 2006

O_O

Thanks for the quote and the linkage, Armitage. That reminds me that the best reaction to the nutty christians is just to back away slowly. Please, Liberal Americans, go back to destroying this holy concept of sexual slavery/marriage. It really needs destroying.
posted by Hildegarde at 6:45 PM on November 4, 2006

People who buy small quantities of drugs don't typically go to jail

Actually, Haggard's voicemail says he's looking to buy either $100 or $200 worth of meth. Two hundred dollars would put him at about an ounce, which is a felony in Colorado.
posted by EarBucket at 6:47 PM on November 4, 2006

I'll make that assumption when I have the evidence that it's a valid one. Not just on mefi but IRL I meet far too many Christians who don't know anything about their own history and theology. It's amusing to me, but deadly serious given the fact that they want to base laws on a book they don't understand.

Call me crazy.
posted by bardic at 6:49 PM on November 4, 2006

As noted upthread his wife just had a baby fwiw.
posted by konolia

It's worth a lot, as dear old (family man and well known bender) Oscar would tell ya.

Hell, I'm a screamer and the father of a wonderful adult girl. I'm as proud of her as I am of anything, konolia. But it doesn't seem to matter how many times it's pointed out to you: families are made in myriad ways, straight, gay, and otherwise.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:55 PM on November 4, 2006

EarBucket: Two hundred dollars would put him at about an ounce, which is a felony in Colorado.

Yeah, but prosecutors and judges have a lot of discretion with this kind of thing. If someone has been squeaky clean, and they commit a non-violent small-time offense like buying meth, they're not typically going to get a jail sentence. I don't personally think the way the system works is just, because I think prosecuters in the U.S. have too much discretion, but that's how things work here.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:55 PM on November 4, 2006

Oh, and our system is unjust not because the prosecutors have too much discretion, but because many of the penalties are over-the-top crazy.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:57 PM on November 4, 2006

Um, not only because the prosecutors have too much discretion. Shit. Sorry.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:58 PM on November 4, 2006

fourcheesemac: Liar.
peeping_thomist: No.

Liar, liar.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2006

Because at its heart, this is about Colorado's drug laws, not one of the most influential Christians in America being a deceitful dirtbag.

What's your horse in this race peeping_Thomist?
posted by bardic at 7:01 PM on November 4, 2006

Pastor Ted could have saved himself a lot of embarassment if he'd hired a staunch conservative gay prostitute like Jeff Gannon.
posted by clevershark at 7:04 PM on November 4, 2006

that's perfect, clever! ...Karl Rove is no doubt kicking himself for not turning on Pastor Ted to the stud services of Jeff Gannon for his secret gay trysts. Gannon's right-wing ideological purity is unquestioned, and he is the Republicans' first choice for a good male escort "top" to satiate their healthy appetites for rough, sweaty man-on-man sex. Gannon, who was welcomed at the White House throughout Bush's first term and even posed as a journalist in the press corps, would never "out" one of his fellow Republicans less than a week before a pivotal midterm election....
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on November 4, 2006

Yeah, but prosecutors and judges have a lot of discretion with this kind of thing. If someone has been squeaky clean, and they commit a non-violent small-time offense like buying meth, they're not typically going to get a jail sentence.

Are you out of your mind? No amount of meth is ever a "Small" crime. And having an ounce of it? that is in no way a minor crime. It's possible that he might have stayed out of jail, but prosecutors and especially judges do not have that much discretion at all ever heard of "mandatory minimum sentences"?

An average person, with an ounce of meth, is going to go to jail in most states.

And given the demonization meth gets in the media its not like prosecutors or judges would even want to use discretion. Maybe if they were caught with weed or something, but meth?

Come on.
posted by delmoi at 7:16 PM on November 4, 2006

fourcheesemac, let me get this right. You think I must be lying when I say I haven't masturbated in nearly 20 years because.... Because why? Because you can't imagine going that long without masturbating?

delmoi, you're right about judges having less discretion than they used to have. But prosecutors still have lots of discretion. It's one of the corrupting aspects of our system.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:27 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

You know, an AJAX-y "auto re-load with the latest comments" would be nice right now.
posted by Alt F4 at 7:32 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist sharing his manly capacity for avoiding self-abuse is the new "taking one for the team."
posted by bardic at 7:36 PM on November 4, 2006

When it comes to tolerance I think you guys need to listen a little more closely to jonmc. Tolerance is not just tolerance of the sacred few, it is tolerance acceptance of all points of everyone. jonmc just does this from his gut. He can teach you a few things. On this issue, he's consistently the most intelligent and enlightening. Listen and learn.

By the way, he's right about konolia. Fine, you may disagree with her, but she is a good person, with a huge heart, and even if she disagrees with, or even disapproves of, you she loves you. The same goes for PeepingThomist, but he's kicking your intellectual butts so who cares.

This thread has really devolved into an "I hate Christians" cesspool. How sad.
posted by caddis at 7:37 PM on November 4, 2006

caddis writes The same goes for PeepingThomist, but he's kicking your intellectual butts so who cares.

Lol. Peeping_Thomist has told us 1) his wife has a "shapely ass," 2) he likes to fuck it, 3) he hasn't masturbated for 20 years. I guess we can agree to disagree on who's kicking who in the "intellectual butt."

As for konolia, I don't know her IRL, obviously. I guess you do. She doesn't love me -- in her own words, I am a sinner who is going to hell. How's that love? "Dearest, I love you so much because you are a dirty, dirty sinner and you're damned and you need to do exactly what I say." That, caddis, is emotional extortion. It's what passes for a theology for far too many, certainly not all, Christians these days.

This thread has been pretty awesome IMO. Different view-points and all that. Sorry plurality bothers you.
posted by bardic at 7:45 PM on November 4, 2006

She loves your despite yours sins. So do I. (although her definition of sin if far, far, far stricter than mine.)
posted by caddis at 7:49 PM on November 4, 2006

By the way, Jesus too, loves you despite your sins.
posted by caddis at 7:50 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "bardic and others, can we have a moratorium on telling Christians to 'read the Bible'? Just assume that we read the Bible, and make whatever point you have to make"

The problem with assuming that is that most Christians don't read the Bible. Or if they have/do, their grasp of it is horrifyingly shaky. See konolia for an apposite example.

caddis writes "but she is a good person, with a huge heart, and even if she disagrees with, or even disapproves of, you she loves you."

No she is not. She is a bigoted, ignorant, hypocritical homophobe. That is not the definition of 'nice' that I am familiar with.

It's disgusting that she has suckered you people into thinking she is a decent human being, when what she stands for is nothing less than ensuring that a significant percentage of the population will forever be relegated to second-class status.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:59 PM on November 4, 2006

Gee caddis, you're not being creepy or anything.
posted by bardic at 7:59 PM on November 4, 2006

I count 75 posts by peeping_thomist in this thread.

I guess maybe he is telling the truth about not masturbating. Where would he find the time?

Enough.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:02 PM on November 4, 2006

caddis, tolerance of intolerance is not good, not happy, not spiritual, and not loving. It's stupid.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:04 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

You are just so filled with hate towards someone you disagree with that you can not see the person for the comment. Konolia is not the caricature of the evangelical hate filled person. She really does love you, even if she disagrees with you. She probably prays for you as well. Whatever. You guys really do not seem to understand where she is comeing from. Go read jonmc's comments. He has the handle on this stuff like no one else.
posted by caddis at 8:08 PM on November 4, 2006

For you bora, tolerance just means agreeing with you. That sounds kind of like how GW sees the world.
posted by caddis at 8:11 PM on November 4, 2006

Meth. Massage. No Sex.
posted by homunculus at 8:11 PM on November 4, 2006

caddis, seriously.

She is a bigot. Period. What more do you need?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:16 PM on November 4, 2006

oh please, dmb, your view of the world is so childish
posted by caddis at 8:19 PM on November 4, 2006

Caddis, I am not filled with hate. You, however, just called me a sinner, and you don't even know me. You know nothing about me. You've never worn my moccasins. What did that Jesus guy say about judging others? Oh yeah -- don't fucking do it, you nitwit.

Konolia has claimed that everyone in this thread is going to hell, probably (at least she included herself. Hurray!). And we're supposed to parse that as "love"? I don't. I think it's lunacy and a serious sense of inadequacy masquerading as a religious impulse.

Bravo for jonmc's tolerance. He's undoubtedly a mensch, despite some flare-ups we've had. But if you read his comments, you'll see that even he pities Konolia and her delusions. He wishes she would change. Even he, arguably the most tolerant of mefites, has kind of had it with her. At least for now. Go figure.
posted by bardic at 8:22 PM on November 4, 2006

By the way, Jesus too, loves you despite your sins.

Well, dig him up then. If we're gonna be sinners, might as well try gay necrophilia.

That sounds kind of like how GW sees the world.

Bush loves you, caddis. Despite your sins, ... and probable Democratic voting record. Why can't you see that?
posted by boaz at 8:24 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic, as I explained to you before (and as you failed to respond to before), in the Christian view, we are all sinners -- including you, me, pastors, priests, and sweet little old ladies of all kinds. I know konolia may see you as a sinner, but I guarantee if she's a Christian, she realizes she is also a sinner.

(Within Protestantism, I am about as far opposite konolia as you can get, and I don't support what she says, I'm just explaining she's not singling out bardic as a sinner.)
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:27 PM on November 4, 2006

Meth. Massage. No Sex.

Well, I can't blame him for that one. Ya know how much a "Happy Ending" costs these days?
posted by bardic at 8:27 PM on November 4, 2006

fourcheesemac, let me get this right. You think I must be lying when I say I haven't masturbated in nearly 20 years because.... Because why? Because you can't imagine going that long without masturbating?

I cannot imagine a male primate -- of any species -- going that long, no. Especially one who admits to downloading porn he, um, also happens not to look at, ever. So let me get this right: you download porn that you don't look at so you don't have to masturbate . . . .

Your wife must have one hell of an ass, is all I can say. Or you must have one mighty repressed relationship to your own body.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:28 PM on November 4, 2006

Let me clarify: a male primate with normal sexual function. Perhaps you have been castrated?
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:29 PM on November 4, 2006

Or does it depend on what the meaning of the word "masturbate" is?
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:30 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping, konolia, even caddis, I'd like you to step away from the keyboard for a moment and consider something - I mean really consider something, as you would prayer or your faith. It's a simple question that any decent scientist, engineer or indeed anyone outside your worldview asks themselves all the time, but the faithful seldom do. Here's the question:

"What if I'm wrong?"

I don't even mean wrong in the big what-if-God-is-a-fairytale kind of way. I mean wrong as in "what if what I believe what God thinks about sex is wrong?" What are the ramifications of that?

Let's say you went to bed and died in your sleep tonight. When you met the Heavenly Father, what do you think He'd regard as more important? That you led and kind and loving life? Or that you lectured people on their sexuality?

Really: we're talking the Creator of the Universe here. Six billion people on the planet. A million billion stars. And you think He cares about what you do with your dick?

So. If you're wrong about that. If God doesn't care about it. How do you think you're going to justify the last 24 hours?

If God doesn't care about consensual adult sexuality, you've just spent the last day lecturing people about how to live their lives. If you've voted on an anti-gay marriage amendment, you've contributed to making people's lives miserable. To making them feel ashamed. To stop them from marrying the person they love. And in some cases - knowing that the suicide rate is far higher in the GBLT community than straight - indirectly contributing to their deaths.

When you're before that Heavenly Throne, how would you justify that? "I did what I was told" ? "I did what I thought you wanted" ?

Of course you want to save people. As has been pointed out, by far better contributors than I, it's what makes your testifying so damned compelling. If you are truly saving the fallen from an eternity of torment, it justifies any action, any speech, any cruelty on this earth.

But if you're wrong, you're simply tormenting them. With no cause. What do you think God would think of that?
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:33 PM on November 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

Point taken booksandlibretti. I'd go a step further and say Paul really jumped Xtianity over the shark-tank when he tried to censor James' letter telling people that works were just as important, if not moreso, than grace. And as someone mentioned, Nietzsche had a point when he called it a "slave" religion. Spending your life beholden to some invisible entity who, at the last second, might pull the rug out from under you and drop you into hell, even if you did lead a righteous life? No thank you. Epicurus' critique of theism ftw.

Funny thing is, and this thread has put a finer point on it for me, as an atheist, I seem to have a clearer moral compass than most Christians. I believe in right and wrong. I believe in good and bad. I believe that if you fuck people over like Haggard did, there should be serious consequences (legal and otherwise).

(I try to avoid using the word "evil," however, because like Konlia's version of "love," it's a powerful word which has been watered down through over-use and abuse.)
posted by bardic at 8:35 PM on November 4, 2006

Bora, you don't seem to understand my point of view very well. I will tell you that it is far away from peepingthomist and konolia's, very, very, far away.
posted by caddis at 8:39 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic: ...as an atheist, I seem to have a clearer moral compass than most Christians.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! ::dies laughing::

it's a good thing that we have so many atheists here, because otherwise we'd always be listening to people preach ...
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Here's one reason to come up with an outrageous lie: the story only has to hold until Tuesday.

Oh -- many think that this "story" (since refuted as being true) reverberates beyond Tuesday's election:

Haggard Saga Will Reshape Evangelical Community.
posted by ericb at 8:43 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm glad I amuse you TPS. Some of us don't need an invisible skygod to take our moral cues from. Shocking, I realize, but adults do exist. Maybe you'll be one some day.
posted by bardic at 8:45 PM on November 4, 2006

But -- back to Tuesday's election --

TIME Magazine: Why the Haggard Scandal Could Hurt Evangelical Turnout..."David Kuo says the Ted Haggard scandal and its fallout shows why, as he makes clear in his bestselling book, it is so dangerous to mix faith and politics."
posted by ericb at 8:45 PM on November 4, 2006

In other news: Bad vibes in Glastonbury after Catholics against pagans
posted by homunculus at 8:46 PM on November 4, 2006

Bora, you don't seem to understand my point of view very well. I will tell you that it is far away from peepingthomist and konolia's, very, very, far away.

Really, caddis? So why are you so eager to defend their intolerance? I'll re-phrase the question, if you like: in front of that Heavenly Throne, do you think you'd recieve bonus points for defending those who implied that homosexuals were equivalent to pedophiles? Or who said that there was only one, correct way to ejaculate?

You may well be right: you're not a Pharisee. You're a centurion, trying to impose public order during a tumultous Passover season.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:48 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm glad I amuse you TPS. Some of us don't need an invisible skygod to take our moral cues from. Shocking, I realize, but adults do exist. Maybe you'll be one some day.

If being an adult means sounding like you, I sure hope not! ::continues to die laughing::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:49 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

From the first comment in ericb's link: BTW, i think this will have ZERO negative impact on Evangelical voting. If anything the timing of this and the MSM excitement putting it on front-pages everywhere should piss of the Evangelicals and make them even more likely to vote.

I think this guy has a point. Dems have been memed into the anti-Christ's buddies, literally, for decades. It'll be decades before that type of hype can be overcome.

But as long as hypocrites, drugs, and prostitutes exist, stuff like this will occur, and people will realize that they need to be careful as to whose snake-oil they partake in.
posted by bardic at 8:50 PM on November 4, 2006

This is too funny: ... "Standing before thousands of followers, the Rev. Ted Haggard prayed from the pulpit last Sunday for lies and deceptions to be exposed."

Who says God doesn’t hear our prayers. And was the man begging God to out him or what?
posted by amberglow at 8:51 PM on November 4, 2006

wtf caddis?

It is childish to call a spade a spade? What is she, if not a bigot? or do her religious views give her a free pass to promulgate intolerance and hatred?

Fuck the hell off.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:52 PM on November 4, 2006

I haven't masturbated in about 20 years. Liar.
posted by fourcheesemac

Hate to inform you of this, buddy, but when one has a healthy sexual relationship with one's partner, it can easily be years without masturbating. p_t has previously made claims as to having a robust sex life. I can easily imagine he's in no need whatsoever for masturbating.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:52 PM on November 4, 2006

Caddis: "You are just so filled with hate towards someone you disagree with that you can not see the person for the comment. Konolia is not the caricature of the evangelical hate filled person. She really does love you, even if she disagrees with you. She probably prays for you as well. Whatever. You guys really do not seem to understand where she is comeing from. Go read jonmc's comments. He has the handle on this stuff like no one else."

Caddis, let me take a wild guess and assume that you're straight. As a gay man, I am sick and tired of fundies telling me that because of my very essence I am immoral and going to hell. They have every right to their beliefs. But when they work to help stir up more anti-gay bigotry by misappropriating scripture, when they cheer on and actively work to enforce legislation that strips me of my basic rights as an equal, tax-paying citizen, then you can bet I'm going to be extremely pissed off at them, and their actions deserve every ounce of my anger.

When their beliefs stop intruding on my life, I will stop calling them out on their bigoted bullshit. If you see that as actively hating them as people, that's your problem. And if you see their morally superior, judgmental comments as proof of their loving attitudes, you are sorely deluded.
posted by mijuta at 8:53 PM on November 4, 2006

Like, ohmygod TPS you totally burned me!
posted by bardic at 8:53 PM on November 4, 2006

Like, ohmygaaaawd, let's go to the mall or something.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:55 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Really, caddis? So why are you so eager to defend their intolerance?

he's defending their humanity, not their definition according to some standard of political correctness ... it doesn't harm people to consider those with ideas they think are wrong as human, you know ...

You may well be right: you're not a Pharisee. You're a centurion, trying to impose public order during a tumultous Passover season.

do you want me to give you some nails so i can put you up for the night?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:58 PM on November 4, 2006

I believe that if you fuck people over like Haggard did, there should be serious consequences (legal and otherwise).

Yeah, I like the idea of justice in the abstract, and sure, even justice for other people sounds good in cases like this -- but I'd sure hate to get exactly what I deserve,* which is why I can't really plump for justice, theologically speaking.

In the real world, legal justice is often the best we can do (e.g., we can't be sure if an apologizing drunk driver has genuinely changed his ways, so for our own safety he has to be taken off the streets). But (Christian POV) God is merciful, and because He knows what's in our hearts, He's able to forgive the drunk driver if he's truly sorry. Not "Dear parole board, I am really, really sorry, I am so sorry, now please let me out" -- but sincerely sorry.

*I haven't done or bought meth, or hired prostitutes, or -- I hope -- been quite as hypocritical as Haggard. Anyone wishing further particulars can e-mail me, but I can answer the obvious FAQ #1 right now: masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible, and I don't consider it a sin.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:59 PM on November 4, 2006

Can't. Got an Atheist Club meeting to go to. We're trying to figure out how many dead Christian babies we can fit into the trunks of our hybrid cars.
posted by bardic at 8:59 PM on November 4, 2006

By the way, Jesus too, loves you despite your sins.
posted by caddis at 10:50 PM EST on November 4

I bet he would have loved me if I lived around the year ~26 CE, but I didn't, and now he's dead. But I appreciate the sentiment.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:01 PM on November 4, 2006

but I can answer the obvious FAQ #1 right now: masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible,

ezekiel 16:17 - "Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,"

not only masturbation, but masurbation with dildos

not that there's really a point there, but i just thought i'd keep the record straight ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:07 PM on November 4, 2006

There's an awfully good post on this whole subject right now over at Slacktivist.
posted by EarBucket at 9:14 PM on November 4, 2006

That is an interesting post, EarBucket; thanks for sharing.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:22 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

As to konolia, she seems to live a charitable material life: she gives a lot to her communities. By her terms, she also lives a charitable non-material life: her sincere concern for a deep relationship with the spiritual experience she calls "Christianity" is intended with kindness and compassion.

I am beginning to think, though, that she deliberately trolled y'all. I'm not sure she thought it was trolling ('cause she truly does believe the horrendous things she believes, like the equality of sin), but she certainly knew there would be an uproar.

BTW, Konolia: Christ did not wish the law of the state be used to force moral behaviour. Christ wanted willing faith, not enforced faith.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 PM on November 4, 2006

fourcheesemac: Especially one who admits to downloading porn he, um, also happens not to look at, ever. So let me get this right: you download porn that you don't look at so you don't have to masturbate . . . .

Up til about 19 years ago, I would sometimes look at porn and masturbate. Then I stopped doing both. I went several years without looking at porn. Then about 8 or 9 years ago I started struggling again with looking at porn (which was now readily available in a way it had never been before). I've described how sometimes I would download porn but not look at it, or only glance at it, but there've also been times when I've looked at it quite intently. It's not something I struggle with all the time, but seems to be a problem when I don't get enough sleep, or am stressed out with work or family stuff.

fourcheesemac: Your wife must have one hell of an ass, is all I can say.

Indeed!

fourcheesemac: Or you must have one mighty repressed relationship to your own body.

I don't think so, but I can see why you might think so. I definitely think my relationship with my body (and with my wife's body) is much better now than it was 20 or 25 years ago. bardic made a snide comment about the idea that sex improves over time. That's certainly been the case in my marriage, and I've read articles (can't remember where right now) that say this isn't uncommon. When you really love your spouse, and you grow closer together, and you learn what the other person likes, sex gets better over time. At least in my experience.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:38 PM on November 4, 2006

I'm a little trouble by the idea that any statement should be excused on the grounds that the commenter genuinely believes it on religious grounds.

What if someone who goes to the World Wide Church of the Creator came here and started spreading racist and anti-semitic messages on the basis that he/she really believed it, and that it's the way things are explained in his/her church? Somehow I doubt that the explanation would have much traction here, even if the person genuinely believed the racist/anti-semitic explanations.

Why not? Well, there is more than one reason for that. For one thing the WWCC is not a widely accepted ministry. Also, racism and anti-semitism are a line that most people do not accept other people crossing.

Unfortunately this also means two things -- that people do judge "mainstream religions" differently from fringe religions or cults, and by this I mean that they give mainstream religions a lot more ideological slack on the basis that they are embraced by many people, and potentially people they know. Also it means that there are certain forms of discrimination which they see as acceptable (if not outright valid or desirable) -- these do not "cross the line" that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable.

I think that's worth reflecting on.
posted by clevershark at 9:38 PM on November 4, 2006

Who's to blame for Pastor Haggard's fall from grace? His fat, lazy wife.
posted by ericb at 9:41 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: Up til about 19 years ago, I would sometimes look at porn and masturbate.

We. Don't. Fucking. Care.
posted by bardic at 9:41 PM on November 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Konolia is not the caricature of the evangelical hate filled person. She really does love you, even if she disagrees with you. She probably prays for you as well. Whatever.

That pretty much nails it.

The problem is, though, that konolia and others of her religious ilk have brought this world to the edge of world war, have stripped us of innumerable personal freedoms, have used the law to enforce their religion.

They need to be called on it. Our sweet little konolia is going to be roundly abused for her foolish, harmful words. She knows the social fabric here. She knows when she is proselytizing her religious laws instead of keeping her faith a private and personal thing.

People who bring the world to the edge of destruction are not people we should necessarily be polite toward.

also, p_t is right about the sex getting better, at least for some couples. my wife and i are heading into yr 20 and it is simply unbelievable how we continue to get better at pleasing one another. there's no substitute for experience.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:43 PM on November 4, 2006

You know, the guy who calls himself "peeping_Thomist", he ironically turns out to be a bit of an exhibitionist...
posted by clevershark at 9:44 PM on November 4, 2006

Almost 1000 comments!
posted by interrobang at 9:49 PM on November 4, 2006

Almost there!
posted by interrobang at 9:50 PM on November 4, 2006

five fresh fish: videos?
posted by papakwanz at 9:50 PM on November 4, 2006

C'mon, guys, we can do it!
posted by interrobang at 9:50 PM on November 4, 2006

.
posted by interrobang at 9:51 PM on November 4, 2006

↑1000th comment</small
posted by interrobang at 9:52 PM on November 4, 2006

Oops
posted by interrobang at 9:53 PM on November 4, 2006

Give me a break, pyramid termite. Look at that passage in context. Don't you think it's actually about, y'know, taking God's gifts and melting them down, making idols out of them, and then engaging in pagan sex rituals? Because I can promise I haven't done that.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:53 PM on November 4, 2006

29 more and we'll break into the top 5!
posted by clevershark at 9:55 PM on November 4, 2006

I think we should shoot for 2,000. Here, I'll begin --

Do Evangelicals have hawter gay sex than your average homosexual? Cuz it's all forbidden and all, but like, double-secret forbidden?
posted by bardic at 9:56 PM on November 4, 2006

We. Don't. Fucking. Care.

I dunno ... the folks who keep bringing up his sex life seem to.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:02 PM on November 4, 2006

He's been bringing it up (ahem) all throughout this thread as an attempt to derail or something. I mean, don't get me wrong -- it's funny and kind of sad, but enough plz tia.
posted by bardic at 10:05 PM on November 4, 2006

So, since we've made it past 1k, can we talk about something else, now?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 10:05 PM on November 4, 2006

ericb, Goldstein makes fun of Haggard saying "How can we proclaim that we are new creations in Christ if we continually return to lap up the vomit of our old way of life?" Blyech!, says Goldstein. I'm not into that kinky stuff!

The only problem is that Haggard in saying that is directly alluding to a passage from 2 Peter that quotes a saying from Proverbs 26. Making fun of a Christian for talking about returning to his own vomit just shows one knows fuck all about Christianity.

Laughing at things one is ignorant about is not the mark of a competent humorist. It's like laughing at immigrants because their names are funny--it says more about you than about them, and what it says ain't good.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:06 PM on November 4, 2006

James Wolcott on the "surreal, suburban informality" of Haggard's confessions.
posted by bardic at 10:09 PM on November 4, 2006

People who bring the world to the edge of destruction are not people we should necessarily be polite toward.

of course, if they decide to quit listening to you, then just where does that leave things? ... how then are you going to persuade them to not bring the world to destruction, as i can assure you that not too many people are willing to talk to those who are consistently impolite to them?

truth is, i'm beginning to feel that the real problem here is that people heard other people say things they didn't like and believe that they have some kind of right not to have to hear such things ... and if that "right" is violated, then the best response is to be as rude and obnoxious as possible ...

guess what? ... evangelicals have every right to tell you in a public space that you are sinners and are going to hell, whether you agree with them or not ... just like two guys or two girls have every right to kiss in public, no matter how it freaks out some people ... and stomping one's feet and having a fit about it is simply going to make people seem ridiculous ...

honest, it's getting to the point where a lot of people would just as soon see both sides shut the hell up ... and with our government going broke, our healthcare system a mess, our climate a mess, our economy tipping precariously and our government becoming vapid, irrelevant and corrupt, don't be surprised in a few years if people are busy solving the major problems of our times and have no time to listen to round 1622 of the culture wars ...

Don't you think it's actually about, y'know, taking God's gifts and melting them down, making idols out of them, and then engaging in pagan sex rituals?

look, it's a clear reference to masturbation, although symbolically, i think it's about israel's spiritual infidelity ... and, well, it certainly is a bizarre and perverse way of describing it, isn't it? ... you can almost feel the fascination the writer has with the subject matter, which just goes to show you that the psychology that drives the haggards of the world is a rather old one ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:12 PM on November 4, 2006

bardic: He's been bringing it up (ahem) all throughout this thread as an attempt to derail or something.

I brought it the example about pornographby in an attempt to illustrate the kind of mental gymnastics a person committing sin can go through that might result in, say, buying drugs and then throwing them away without using them, or getting a massage from a gay prostitute but not going through with having sex. That was in response to people saying that it was "absurd" to think he could have bought that meth or had those massages without using the drugs or having sex. It's not absurd (though if we really are talking about years instead of just a few times, it's much harder--almost impossible--to believe). I don't see how you can call that a case of me trying to derail anything.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:12 PM on November 4, 2006

EarBucket, thanks for the post. That was a good read.
posted by mijuta at 10:13 PM on November 4, 2006

Is there meth in Ted Haggard's heaven?
posted by ericb at 10:24 PM on November 4, 2006

five fresh fish: videos?

Not into them, neither watching nor creating. I'll bet you can find buyers or actors on eBay, though.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:32 PM on November 4, 2006

What I don't understand is why Haggard would be doing meth in the first place. Unless I'm completely out to lunch, isn't meth about as sane as huffing gasoline, ie. so fundamentally self-destructive that you have to be beyond hope to even think about trying it?

I mean there are so many other good drugs out there he could use. Pot, coke, even heroin. Why on earth meth?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:35 PM on November 4, 2006

I mean there are so many other good drugs out there he could use. Pot, coke, even heroin. Why on earth meth?

It's very easy to make, so out in the middle of nowhere like CO it might be the only choice after weed.
posted by Paris Hilton at 10:39 PM on November 4, 2006

If FedEx or UPS delivers there, there are drugs there.
posted by bardic at 10:42 PM on November 4, 2006

Unless I'm completely out to lunch, isn't meth about as sane as huffing gasoline, ie. so fundamentally self-destructive that you have to be beyond hope to even think about trying it?

You're competely out to lunch.
posted by spaltavian at 11:02 PM on November 4, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "I'm ready to believe Ted lied if there's good evidence that he lied, but so far his story seems plausible to me."

Completely plausible. See, it turns out that the homo masseur (lie all homos pederasts -- all homos are pederasts) hates America, and is in league with Saddam, who's in league with Osama bin Laden.

Pastor Haggard was serving is country, looking for WMDs up the prostitute's butt.

With his WMD-detecting tongue.

See? Plausible!
posted by orthogonality at 11:24 PM on November 4, 2006

me & my monkey writes "A lot of 'straight' guys figure they're not gay because they don't get fucked by other guys, no matter how many other guys they fuck up the ass."


Yep. Let's remember that Republican paragon, Roy Cohn, who maintained to his death (of "liver cancer", i.e., AIDS) that he wasn't a fag because, he'd never sucked cock. Despite the legion of men he'd had suck his cock.

It's men like Roy Cohn who make me wish the Christians are right, because then somewhere in Hell's lower levels, Ethel Rosenberg would be waterboarding Roy. For eternity.
posted by orthogonality at 11:30 PM on November 4, 2006

Anyone got a link to a cool Flash game?
posted by Cyrano at 11:35 PM on November 4, 2006

This guy really is some piece of work: ... The pastor returned to my charges of Bush’s deceitfulness. “Listen,” he said testily, “I think [we Christian believers] are responsible not to lie [sic], but I don’t think we’re responsible to say everything we know.”
posted by amberglow at 11:56 PM on November 4, 2006

...a member of the four-member oversight board said in an interview Saturday night that Haggard admitted Thursday to sexual misconduct.

The board member, the Rev. Michael Ware of Victory Church in Westminster, said the board first met with Haggard and his wife Thursday and Haggard immediately confessed to sexually immoral conduct. ...
posted by amberglow at 12:01 AM on November 5, 2006

I wonder if the brainwashed will ever realize that "none doth protest as loudly" rings ever more true about the people who get into power for the purpose of saving others from themselves.

Extremists are never healthy people. Religion should not be a fetish.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:29 AM on November 5, 2006

bardic: ...as an atheist, I seem to have a clearer moral compass than most Christians.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! ::dies laughing::

it's a good thing that we have so many atheists here, because otherwise we'd always be listening to people preach ...
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:40 PM EST on November 4

Ouch! Stick a fork in him, he's superhero toast.
posted by caddis at 2:02 AM on November 5, 2006

That's the best you've got caddis?
posted by bardic at 2:11 AM on November 5, 2006

p_tom

That was in response to people saying that it was "absurd" to think he could have bought that meth or had those massages without using the drugs or having sex. It's not absurd (though if we really are talking about years instead of just a few times, it's much harder--almost impossible--to believe)

As I understand a lie to be a misrepresentation of reality, I wonder how could he still feel "christian" when he lied to himself about doing something while predicating the exact opposite. Even ONE time , he should have asked himself what was "wrong" with him, possibily without giving the fault to "temptation" (another name for devil).

Possibly he or others may say they were "economical with the truth" , that is "not telling the whole story" so that they look as saints or misguide, like a certain political party.

I guess he went into denial because he, much like many other "christians", don't want to understand the nature of their urges and deal with them individually, so when an urge come they just go in repeating "God said it's bad" which is the quasi-adult equivalent of "mom said it is bad" and JUST repress their urges, without even pondering , of course, the notion that God was probably wrong.

Also it is certainly A LOT more convenient to just go to a priest, have a confession, be pardoned and then go rinse and repeat the sin , blaming he is just human and fell into temptation, place there by either Devil or by God to test him..which clearly leads to the question, why the f**k does God mess with me ?

Which, I guess, is what will happen. He will be the evangelical equivalent of a Born Again Christian, redempted, found the light and try to bring others into his new business.
posted by elpapacito at 2:52 AM on November 5, 2006

So I went to see the movie Jesus Camp tonight. And lo and behold, it featured Pastor Ted in a nice cameo appearance. He brought the house down when he pointed right at the camera and said, teasingly, "I know what you did last night!" At least one audience member shouted back "We know what you did too!" There were a couple other nicely ironic moments as well.
posted by litlnemo at 3:23 AM on November 5, 2006

And here's the obligatory YouTube clip.
posted by litlnemo at 5:17 AM on November 5, 2006

pyramid termite writes "guess what? ... evangelicals have every right to tell you in a public space that you are sinners and are going to hell,"

Yes they do. The problem that those of us who are actually directly affected by these assholes have is they are trying to legislate their morality.

five fresh fish writes "I mean there are so many other good drugs out there he could use. Pot, coke, even heroin. Why on earth meth?"

Meth is astonishingly easy to get. Much easier, in many places, than pot--weed needs to be shipped or grown. Meth needs a kitchen. Think of it as moonshine for the 21st century.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:16 AM on November 5, 2006

It's the most perverse sort of abuse of language to refer to konolia's ignorant, hateful, profoundly damaging spew as "love." Her brand of "love" has blood on its hands, and not a little either.

I can't see that someone "loves" me who also wants to undo everything I am, everything I do, and everything I believe in, now and for all time. This is quite literally what she's asking for in her prayers, and I think it's natural that I might not appreciate that.

It's an obscenity inconsistent not merely with a profession of love but with the most basic respect, caddis, and I cannot for the life of me understand why you would accept such naked hypocrisy.
posted by adamgreenfield at 6:32 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

The problem that those of us who are actually directly affected by these assholes have is they are trying to legislate their morality.

actually, their morality has been legislated for thousands of years and you are the ones who are trying to change that ... you are, in fact, demanding that society change the rules for you

that's fine and justifiable ... but you should also understand the dynamics involved and the irrational fear some have when you try to change something, ANYTHING, about the society we live in

you should also remember that not everyone who holds the opinions konolia has is politically active or sees political activity as the proper way to advocate their morality ... i think that it's likely that the fallout from this controversy will see evangelicals less eager to get involved in politics ... there was a time when they considered that to be too "worldly" and not worthy of a christian's time and they may go back to that belief, which even today, is more common than many are aware of
posted by pyramid termite at 6:39 AM on November 5, 2006

pyramid termite writes "actually, their morality has been legislated for thousands of years and you are the ones who are trying to change that ... you are, in fact, demanding that society change the rules for you"

Society agrees. It's the wingnut fundamentalists who don't. Let's not cloud the issue, shall we? Nor mince words: they are a dangerous cancer and should be removed.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:51 AM on November 5, 2006

It's a bit of near-universal Christian dogma, left and right, that once you attach God to an idea, it's not rude or hateful to say it any more. In that respect, dnab should probably change his tactics a bit. For example:

"You're a fat, fucking moron." -- Hate
"Your obesity and idiocy is sinful before God. I'll pray for you to lose weight and gain intelligence." -- Love

Throw in a few vaguely-related bible quotes, like, oh, Proverbs 23:1-4:

When you sit to dine with a ruler, note well what is before you,
and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.
Do not crave his delicacies, for that food is deceptive.
Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint.

And voila, you're BIG-HEARTED and FULL OF LOVE now, see?
posted by boaz at 6:56 AM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: Society agrees.

That's why all those state constitutional amendments about marriage have been such smashing successes for the gay rights people.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:02 AM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist opines "That's why all those state constitutional amendments about marriage have been such smashing successes for the gay rights people."

You know, it seems in bad form to tell someone "look over there, there's a rabid mob with pitchforks and torches here to lynch you, why don't you stop and consider their point of view."
posted by clevershark at 7:08 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Yeah, they have. In some states, gays can marry now. That wasn't the case 10 years ago.

Countries, too.
posted by bardic at 7:09 AM on November 5, 2006

elpapacito: I wonder how could he still feel "christian" when he lied to himself about doing something while predicating the exact opposite. Even ONE time , he should have asked himself what was "wrong" with him, possibily without giving the fault to "temptation" (another name for devil).

I expect he felt quite bad about it. I'm sure he over the years has spent a lot of time asking what was wrong with himself. The real problem is that he didn't really deal with it, cut off the deceptive behavior, and come clean with his wife and whoever it is that gives him spiritual guidance. This is a big problem for evangelical pastors, since each one is set up as his own pope, without the institutional supports that a pope has to prevent him from spiraling down into duplicitous behavior--yes, I know all about the bad popes, but the point is about how evangelical pastors don't have adequate support for their spiritual lives, not about how various popes have failed to make use of the institutional support they have for theirs. The Driscoll article linked to above has some decent advice for how pastors can deal with this, but it's an institutional problem for them.

elpapacito: I guess he went into denial because he, much like many other "christians", don't want to understand the nature of their urges and deal with them individually

What arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Who the fuck are you to judge other people like that?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:15 AM on November 5, 2006

bardic, that doesn't show that "society agrees". This is not a topic about which "society agrees", and it's a lie to say that it is.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:16 AM on November 5, 2006

Who the fuck are you to judge other people like that?

You've been doing it this whole thread peeping_Thomist, what with your proclamations of what "natural" female orifice semen is appropriate for, how you've bravely not masturbated for two decades, etc.
posted by bardic at 7:23 AM on November 5, 2006

Peeping_Thom: "That's why all those state constitutional amendments about marriage have been such smashing successes for the gay rights people."

Are you aware of how close a lot of those votes have been? Are you aware of the overwhelming extent to which fundies in tandem with Bush have stirred up gay marriage as an evil that has to be quashed? Are you aware that on average less than 50% of our citizens even bother to vote? And are you aware that despite that, there has been extensive reporting of election tampering, oddly enough always in favor of the GOP?

The fundies have continually stirred up the demonization of gay people, preaching to their flock of millions that gay marriage must be defeated because it is God's law.

Why have they chosen to obsess on this issue rather than, say, the unncessary deaths of thousands of people in the Iraq War?
posted by mijuta at 7:30 AM on November 5, 2006

clevershark writes "You know, it seems in bad form to tell someone 'look over there, there's a rabid mob with pitchforks and torches here to lynch you, why don't you stop and consider their point of view.'"

Which is precisely what I have been trying to explain. But those who are not actually affected by this issue personally, as opposed to being affected by proxy ("I have gay friends"), will never, ever understand that.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:32 AM on November 5, 2006

Peeping_Thom: "What arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Who the fuck are you to judge other people like that?"

LOL. Oh, is it now hitting a little close to home for you, Peeping? Because you've been posting arrogant, ignorant bullshit in many comments in this thread.

Just to cite on of your many bullshit examples: sex between heteros is sacred, sex between gays is not.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO JUDGE PEOPLE LIKE THAT?
posted by mijuta at 7:33 AM on November 5, 2006

mijuta: Are you aware of how close a lot of those votes have been?

Of course I am. And the fact that they are close proves that it is a lie to say that "society agrees". These are not topics on which "society agrees". It is a lie to say otherwise.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:34 AM on November 5, 2006

Society doesn't "agree" about anything. Civilized societies start from the proposition that since consensus is generally impossible to achieve, we'll strive for a workable ad-hoc towards an infrastructure that caters to the demands of the majority, but allows for various minorities to still take part, and over time have the ability to change things in their direction.

You don't speak for "society." Neither do I. But over time (speaking as an American), people are starting to realize that discrimination based of sexual identity is both unfair and stupid. Because honestly, who the fuck cares what you do in the privacy of your home with another consenting adult? Honestly, we know more about your sex life now than anyone, other than you and yours, really wants to. Awesome. Go bang that "shapely ass" all you want. But please don't extrapolate your private desires into normative strictures.

So I'm gonna get all 9th grade civics on you now -- American society didn't "agree" that women should vote in the early 20th century. Those uppity, uppity women with their hysterical uteruses and periods and all. But enough pressure was put on the government, through activism, and through, *gasp*, some uncivil, shrill public protests, that things changed (and it still took far too long). Good for them, and good for us. Human beings living in civil society deserve equal rights to life, liberty, the protection of property, and the pursuit of happiness. Gays ca. 2006 are going to get these things, eventually, and people like you will be remembered as the George Wallace's of their time.
posted by bardic at 7:35 AM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

Here he is with the prez. (Sorry if someone else has already linked to this, but I just don't have the time to go through 1000 plus comments to check on it...)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:39 AM on November 5, 2006

their morality has been legislated for thousands of years and you are the ones who are trying to change that ... you are, in fact, demanding that society change the rules for you

Not at all. Our country and our society is based on law and our Constitution, which bestows rights on us ALL. Our entire history is about bestowing the rights people always should have had, but didn't, on them, whether it's non-land-owning white men, women, minorities, or us--we're just another part of a long, proud history of making the words we utter more true. Either you foks are American too, like all the rest of us, or you're not--decide.

and what bardic said.
posted by amberglow at 7:45 AM on November 5, 2006

mijuta, there's a traditional distinction drawn between judging behaviors and judging people. A kind of act might be wrong, but a person who does that kind of act might be innocent because they are invincibly ignorant about it being wrong, for example if they live in a culture that tells them that wrong is right and have in good faith internalized those lies trusting that they are true. I don't have any interest in making judgments about what motivates you to engage in disordered sexual activity, or to make judgments about whether your disordered behavior is subjectively innocent or not. I strive to be charitable in interpreting others' behavior, and usually that means assuming that people who are acting badly are acting in ignorance for which they are not responsible, while suspending judgment about what is actually the case as far as guilt goes. elpapacito, and you, and several others, have gone far beyond that to making judgments about the internal motivations of people with whom you disagree. Where do you get off doing that?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:45 AM on November 5, 2006

Pyramid termite: "actually, their morality has been legislated for thousands of years and you are the ones who are trying to change that ... you are, in fact, demanding that society change the rules for you."

Yes, their morality has been legislated for years. So we should just sit by and deal with it? Remember that time in history when there was thing called slavery, and the Bible was used to justify it? Or how about that thing called segregation, also justified by the Bible? Civil rights, anyone?

No one here is "demanding that society change the rules for" us. We are calling out unfair bigotry that affects us as equal, tax-paying citizens. We are advocating for change.

"that's fine and justifiable ... but you should also understand the dynamics involved and the irrational fear some have when you try to change something, ANYTHING, about the society we live in."

What makes you assume we don't know this??? So Konolia and Peeping and I'm sure millions of others have extreme theist views and irrational fear. Understood. I'm still going to call out for my equal rights and defend myself and others from being designated as second-class citizens.
posted by mijuta at 7:46 AM on November 5, 2006

That should be "folks" but at this point, "f*cks" is just as applicable.

You guys need to go off and start your own Jesusland or something, because this ain't it, and as long as we have breath, it won't be. In America, rights and priviledges don't only go to those you approve of--they go to all.
posted by amberglow at 7:47 AM on November 5, 2006

bardic: Civilized societies start from the proposition that since consensus is generally impossible to achieve, we'll strive for a workable ad-hoc towards an infrastructure that caters to the demands of the majority, but allows for various minorities to still take part, and over time have the ability to change things in their direction.

What utter bullshit. There are civilized societies that do this, but there are also civilized societies that do not. You are setting up a standard for having a "civilized society" that excludes nearly all civilized societies from qualifying. That by itself should be proof that what you are saying is wrong.

Maybe what you meant is that civilized societies that you would want to live in do this. Fine. But don't give us this bullshit that liberalism is the defining feature of civilized societies.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:49 AM on November 5, 2006

You've been doing it this whole thread peeping_Thomist,

You have to understand, bardic, that for people who believe in God, it's God doing the judging and they're just reporting it. When Godless people do it, of course, it's the person himself being judgmental. It's what psychologists call dissociation, where you take a part of yourself and believe it is actually something separate. Sad really. I'm praying for peeping_thomist.
posted by boaz at 7:50 AM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

peeping_Thomist opines "I don't have any interest in making judgments about what motivates you to engage in disordered sexual activity, or to make judgments about whether your disordered behavior is subjectively innocent or not."

Yes, we can clearly see that you scrupulously avoid judging others.
posted by clevershark at 7:51 AM on November 5, 2006

Our country and our society is based on law and our Constitution, which bestows rights on us ALL.

our *government* is based on law and our constitution ... our society is not ... perhaps one of these days we'll have a culture and society that is more surely based on the idea that people should live and let live and myob, but that's not the one we live in now

and if the 60s had ANY lesson for people, it's that legislating such changes is very hard to do effectively and it takes a long damn time

Either you foks are American too, like all the rest of us, or you're not--decide.

because you're going to excommunicate those who aren't, according to your standards ... good luck with that

dirtynumbangelboy: Society agrees.

could have fooled me ... it was my impression that society is quite divided over it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:54 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

clevershark, I deliberate included the word "disordered," twice, in order to highlight the distinction I was drawing. I guess you still missed it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:54 AM on November 5, 2006

Peeping_Thom, you can draw the distinction between judging behaviors and judging people all you want. The fact is, being gay is not a behavior. It is not about sex. It is about identity.

You and Konolia have consistently judged us, and then to add insult to injury have claimed you are not judging us as people and are coming from a place of love.

Where do you get off doing that?

And don't proselytize about "disordered sexual activity" to me. According to your view, a hetero one-night stand is more scared than the sexual love expressed between two men or two women who have been together for decades.
posted by mijuta at 7:55 AM on November 5, 2006

Pyramid Termite: "and if the 60s had ANY lesson for people, it's that legislating such changes is very hard to do effectively and it takes a long damn time."

And . . . ? What is your point? No one here is claiming it's going to happen overnight. No one is claiming it's easy. Still, we're going to speak out about it.
posted by mijuta at 7:59 AM on November 5, 2006

mijuta: According to your view, a hetero one-night stand is more sacred than the sexual love expressed between two men or two women who have been together for decades.

That's absolutely not true. Both of them are disordered, of course, but the one-night stand seems to me to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church much less perfectly than does the sex between two men or two women who have been together for decades. It makes me sad that you would assume I'd think otherwise; obviously I'm not doing a good job of putting across what I think about this stuff.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:59 AM on November 5, 2006

mijuta: The fact is, being gay is not a behavior. It is not about sex. It is about identity.

I agree. Being gay (having a homosexual orientation) is no sin.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:03 AM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist opines "clevershark, I deliberate included the word 'disordered,' twice, in order to highlight the distinction I was drawing. I guess you still missed it."

I put it in bold in the hope that you wouldn't miss my point. Evidently that was in vain.
posted by clevershark at 8:04 AM on November 5, 2006

Was Christ having one-night stands? good for him--i always knew there was something going on with that Magdalene woman. How does two drunk straight people (going at it in a car or in an alley behind a bar or at his or her place or a hotel, etc) reflect the relationship between Christ and his Church?
posted by amberglow at 8:04 AM on November 5, 2006

amberglow: How does two drunk straight people (going at it in a car or in an alley behind a bar or at his or her place or a hotel, etc) reflect the relationship between Christ and his Church?

Very, very badly. Worse than two gay people who have loved each other for years having sex.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:07 AM on November 5, 2006

clevershark: I put it in bold in the hope that you wouldn't miss my point. Evidently that was in vain.

Maybe you could make the point again, so I'll get it this time. I was drawing a distinction between judging behaviors and judging persons. My use of the word "disordered" to describe behaviors shows that I actually am judging persons how?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:09 AM on November 5, 2006

I guess Ted's apology letter will be out soon. Here's my prediction: if he comes clean on all the lying, and connects his lying this past week to the duplicity of his secret life over the past however-long-it-was, he'll end up OK. He'll go into exile for awhile, but he'll end up with another mega-church eventually. But if he in any way seems to be holding back something, he's in serious trouble with his people.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:18 AM on November 5, 2006

bardic: Civilized societies start from the proposition that since consensus is generally impossible to achieve, we'll strive for a workable ad-hoc towards an infrastructure that caters to the demands of the majority, but allows for various minorities to still take part, and over time have the ability to change things in their direction.

peeping_Thomist: What utter bullshit. There are civilized societies that do this, but there are also civilized societies that do not. You are setting up a standard for having a "civilized society" that excludes nearly all civilized societies from qualifying. That by itself should be proof that what you are saying is wrong. Maybe what you meant is that civilized societies that you would want to live in do this. Fine. But don't give us this bullshit that liberalism is the defining feature of civilized societies.

You, sir, are becoming like gasoline to crazy, and I fully approve.

Here we have this forum. Here we lay our cards on the table. Right now, I've got Big Slick, and Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and Mary Wollstonecraft giving me some advice. You've got, like, I dunno, Jack-7, longshot straight draw, and nothing but your own inner monologue about how right you must be. I've got roughly 300 years of human history and progress, and yes, that dirty word "liberalism" that grants me the rights to do, within limits, what I want, and grants you the right to bang that "shapely ass" and not masturbate. Awesome. As for the society I "want to live in," I happen to have it, warts and all, in America and in America as a piece of growing liberal, tolerant, educated global culture. And people like me, dirty librul atheists like me, who happen to have very firm moral attitudes regarding what's right and what's wrong, what's good and what's evil, what's tolerance and what's bigotry, we're going to do our best to make sure that people like you aren't silenced (that would, obviously, be wrong), but rather, held up to the light and shown to be the worthless, hypocritical, desperate failures that they are.

So me and Thom and John and Mary, we're just laughing at you right now, because the flop came up with K-A-A, and you've lost your chance at the straight. But you keep babbling about how you speak for all people in any society, and we're laughing even harder because you went all-in with your theological dissonace and now I've got all your money. And I'm laughing, very hard, at you.

Figureatively speaking, of course.
posted by bardic at 8:22 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Texas Hold-em references are so 2005.
posted by smackfu at 8:31 AM on November 5, 2006

If there were a metafilter forty years ago we would be having the same debates here; About the horrors of inter-racial marriage, which, it should be noted, was still illegal in some U.S. states heading into the 1970’s. And you can bet there’d be plenty of good, god-fearing folks here holding forth with dire predictions about the lord’s intentions that the races be separate,* (excuses that, let’s face it, were much less about simultaneous integrity than about keeping blacks away from whites) and how the fabric of moral life as we knew it would be ruptured by such abominable and unnatural ideas.

*Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix

Sounds pretty ridiculous now, right? And so will this debate about denying civil rights to gays when people in 2030 look back on it.
posted by applemeat at 8:34 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

peeping_Thomist: My use of the word "disordered" to describe behaviors shows that I actually am judging persons how?

This is a ploy, commonly used by Christians, to allow them to judge others, yet still convince themselves that they are not.

Gay people knowingly do that which you consider to be 'disordered'. They don't do it by mistake, nor do they do it because they have fallen prey to temptation. They do it because it is part of who they are and part of the loving relationships that they have.

Your claim that you are judging the behavior, and not the person, is a transparent lie that you tell yourself in order to avoid the consequences of holding a bigoted opinion.
posted by jsonic at 8:37 AM on November 5, 2006

pyramid termite: that's fine and justifiable ... but you should also understand the dynamics involved and the irrational fear some have when you try to change something, ANYTHING, about the society we live in


Yeah, see everyone? You big nasty gays are scary!!! You must pity those poor, meek, timid little turbo-Christians that have giant mega-churches and millions of dollars and television shows and followers and conference calls with the president and....

Well you get the point. You can see why they'd be scared of a couple of dudes in leather, right? It's TERRIFYING! Don't be so damn scary, homos!
posted by papakwanz at 8:38 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

peeping_Thomist writes: But don't give us this bullshit that liberalism is the defining feature of civilized societies.

Aright, there were just too many nuggets in your previous blather to fully take on, but this one, this one deserves pause.

You're obviously working PR at the Saudi Arabian embassy now, or you're drunk on "shapely ass," but please parse this for the rest of us. Civilized societies haven't been around that long, unfortunately. One of their hallmarks is, indeed, liberalism -- not libertarianism, although I'd argue that goes hand-in-hand -- but liberalism, an openess to new ideas, thoughts, and experiences and a tendency, although not a neurotic impulse, to throw out old thinking when it no longer serves the greater good of helping people, all people, to live their lives in the best, most fair manner possible.

I've made a case for the messed up, problematic, assinine society within which I exist. We start with the proposition that since we can't make things perfect, we'll make things as fair as possible within reason. As imperfect as we as humans are, and as we as societies are, we'll stive towards implementing various processes that allow us to right our collective wrongs -- slavery is totally fucked up, but over time and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and all that really awful Reconstruction stuff, blacks will have the right to vote and not be lynched. Women too. Etc.

Not sure why that bothers you so much. Fairness and equality and common fucking decency to your fellow human beings. It's sad that that type of thinking scares you so.

(PS, I've got more friends I'd love for you to meet peeping_Thomist. They include Soren Kierkegaard, Richard Rorty, John Rawls, David Hume, Walter Benjamin, and this funny liberal-hippie dude named Jesus. The same Jesus who said that to live your life beholden to received prejudice is to miss the whole fricking point of life. And he hung out with poor people, women, and prostitutes! I know that might blow your mind, so take a few breaths first. Whew! What a maroon that guy was!
posted by bardic at 8:47 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

smackfu writes: Texas Hold-em references are so 2005.

Yeah. Should have done a Wow/Horde Paladins ZOMG! thing.
posted by bardic at 8:49 AM on November 5, 2006

I guess he went into denial because he, much like many other "christians", don't want to understand the nature of their urges and deal with them individuallyI guess he went into denial because he, much like many other "christians", don't want to understand the nature of their urges and deal with them individually

peep_t said What arrogant, ignorant bullshit. Who the fuck are you to judge other people like that?

I express opinions, I don't judge , the difference being that somebody may care to listen to my opinion, but if you don't obey to a judge
opinion+sentence there will be consequences. Unlike many other pious people, I don't demand other to conform to my ideas (if incompatible) neither work behind the scenes to "save them from themselves" because, as I learned in my life, nobody else but you can "help" (rather then catastrofic save) yourself.

Another thing I learned about is DENIAL, that is, denying to self a fact because it makes us feel uncomfortable. There could be valid reasons for feeling like that and reasons that may demand help from others, which is fine. BUT absolutely nobody can make help you change, or understand, if you don't want to change or understand.

Problem is sometimes the pain is so strong, so stratified, that any tought may trigger a knee-jerk reaction like yours, but don't worry I am not offended, I couldn't care less, and please don't take it personally.

This is a big problem for evangelical pastors, since each one is set up as his own pope, without the institutional supports that a pope has to prevent him from spiraling down into duplicitous behavior

What causes the spiral to begin with ? Some would say temptation, others would say devil, others God, others would say "freudian id". I personally think he had a fantasy about getting pleasure from gay sex (maybe he felt bored by usual sex OR no longer felt attracted by women) and of course as anybody else he tried to make the fantasy become real.

Did his head explode ? Nah. Did God descend from heaven and destroyed him ? Not really. Will he perish in hell ? We will never know, nobody comes back from death. BUT what we know is that he talked about things he doesn't understand to being with FOR YEARS, misguiding people into consider "homosexual sex" as something bad, evil, despicable.

The entire "defence method" from a "problem" that doesn't exist to being with is...resisting temptation ! BUULLSHIT, BULLSHIT. This is called _repression_ and doesn't terminate sexual urges at all, because they are natural, they are not "supernatural devil" invented. One way to understand OWN sexual urges is understanding the way human beings _desire_

BUT the precondition is not being afraid of what one could discover, being open, thinking that "others" are not here because of some idiotic original sin concept, thinking that "unusual behavior" is not necessarily "bad to me" or "wicked"
posted by elpapacito at 9:14 AM on November 5, 2006

...but liberalism, an openness to new ideas, thoughts, and experiences and a tendency, although not a neurotic impulse, to throw out old thinking when it no longer serves the greater good of helping people, all people, to live their lives in the best, most fair manner possible.

Simply, brilliantly put.

I'd also like to predict something plausible myself: that ex-Pastor Ted Haggard abjectly apologizes for his lying and the harm he's caused others, enters into a "dark night of the soul" and emerges with the profoundly simple understanding that right thinking = right praxis is an impoverished and demeaning response to the phenomenal gift of being a responsive and responsible human being; that he then embraces an identity so brutally repressed in himself for so long by moving to some Colorado Springs of gay identity (Haight, East Village, etc.) and there utilizes his obvious gifts of consensus building and fund-raising and gaining access to power by opening centers of education, research and healing for the problems of drug addiction and STDs, while promulgating a message of hope and conviction that nothing done in love or even simple harmless ephemeral joy is somehow 'disordered,' 'simply wrong' or (God help us) a sin.

No, really, I'm lying. I predict no such thing.
posted by Haruspex at 9:19 AM on November 5, 2006

Why are you people even responding to p_t? It seems like a waste of time. Not just because he's not going to change his mind, but also because he obviously has is own view of the interplay sex and morality. Arguing with him and trying to understand his view won't help you understand anyone else's.

That's one of the big difficulties debating Christians, especially in a multi-agent setting like metafilter. They all have their own personal philosophical view of things and can't understand that you're arguing against some one else.

Here's an example:

Person A: I believe the bible is literally true.
Person B: How can you believe the bible is literally true when it contradicts itself?
Person C: B you asshole, I never said the bible was literally true!

So again, who cares what peeping_Thomast thinks? I don't think many other people share his views on sex, because frankly they sound pretty weird to me.

God I'm glad I don't have any views on sex and morality, removing the guilt from sex makes it a lot more enjoyable, I'm sure. The last thing I want to do is have a three-way with Jesus like some of these Christians seem to think they're doing.
posted by Paris Hilton at 9:20 AM on November 5, 2006

Peeping_Thom, you can draw the distinction between judging behaviors and judging people all you want. The fact is, being gay is not a behavior. It is not about sex. It is about identity.

Indeed. I have a couple self-identified celibate gay Christian acquaintances ready to blow Peeping_Thom's mind. Just his mind, though. Celibate and all, y'know.
posted by verb at 9:22 AM on November 5, 2006

Holy Momma, are you guys still here?

peeping_Thomist writes: But don't give us this bullshit that liberalism is the defining feature of civilized societies.

bardic nails it: You're obviously working PR at the Saudi Arabian embassy now, or you're drunk on "shapely ass," but please parse this for the rest of us. Civilized societies haven't been around that long, unfortunately. One of their hallmarks is, indeed, liberalism

Yes, but don't try explaining that to people from the Old Times. Liberal democracy is the pinnacle of human civilisation, one of the few things the West can truly be proud of.

Interesting that, where you poor bastards come from, "liberal" is a naughty word.

That says a lot about your country, USians. Sucks to be you, sorry especially to the repressed homosexuals in the house. Come to Canada, or the Netherlands, there are less wrong-thinkers over here.
posted by Meatbomb at 9:23 AM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

peeping_Thomist opines "Maybe you could make the point again, so I'll get it this time. I was drawing a distinction between judging behaviors and judging persons. My use of the word 'disordered' to describe behaviors shows that I actually am judging persons how?"

But you do judge them. You judge them to be "confused", which, frankly, is a cop-out, as it is then a pretext to claim that you make no moral judgement. Obviously people who engaged in "disordered behavior" are merely like the blind walking along an unfamiliar road; if they could see, of course they wouldn't cross streets everywhere and expose themselves to traffic! Therefore if you commit a disordered act you must be confused. There is no other explanation.

This is a rather interesting approach, mind you. Under that approach there is no such thing as a moral judgement because anyone who is fit to make a moral judgement MUST ABSOLUTELY make the right one -- fitness to make judgement is intrinsically linked to "knowledge" -- by which one means "doctrine". You cannot really have free will until you lose the will to do everything that is "disordered". I've heard that argument many a time. St. Augustine's City of God inevitably figures prominently in it, either directly or by allusion.

That sort of "magical thinking" is even more hermeneutical and epiphany-dependent (so I repeat myself!) than the view by some Protestants that every word in the Bible is absolutely fact and cannot be questioned.
posted by clevershark at 9:25 AM on November 5, 2006

five_fresh_fish: Hate to inform you of this, buddy, but when one has a healthy sexual relationship with one's partner, it can easily be years without masturbating. p_t has previously made claims as to having a robust sex life. I can easily imagine he's in no need whatsoever for masturbating.

Nonsense. In 20 years? Never a few days alone? Every sexual feeling immediately centered on one person who is always available? Or the will power of G.W.B. to "stay the course" and avoid all temptation to mortify the flesh? It might be possible under some sort of extreme regimen of mental discipline, though even then I'll bet Buddhist monks and cloistered nuns in their sexual primes can't abstain. But a guy tempted enough by impure thoughts of -- pay attention -- women (presumably) other than his wife, she of the lovely ass?

Humans are primates. Primates masturbate just like they shit and piss and sleep. Consciousness is powerful, but not so much that it can override basic natural drives entirely, and the more so if the primary drive (actual reproductive sex) is enjoined for "moral" reasons. The null hypothesis here is that everybody does it, and it would take a lot of evidence to convince anyone who knows the first thing about primate behavior that a particular normally functioning male human being could go 20 years, or 20 weeks, without "abusing" himself.

My larger point stands: let's say P_T has gone two decades denying his basic primate behavioral drives (including his drive, as a male, to at least imagine sex with other women). Who the f*ck is violating "natural law" here? The one P_T tells us is "inscribed on our hearts" . . . .
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:28 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why are you people even responding to p_t? It seems like a waste of time.

It SEEMS so, yeah.

Arguing with him and trying to understand his view won't help you understand anyone else's.

Not really, I disagree. P_t is just an human as much like any other human if one shuts a door in his face, he will resent that and close himself even more, which is what throws a lot of people like p_t in the hands of the Haggard-likes around the world.

Now he may reconsider, or not reconsider, or think, but so as long as he question himself and his wisdom there is a chance for a change and I am not going to shut that door in his face, as long as I can.
posted by elpapacito at 9:29 AM on November 5, 2006

. . . But a guy tempted enough by impure thoughts of -- pay attention -- women (presumably) other than his wife . . . .

I forgot a clause: ". . . tempted enough to (admittedly) download pornography featuring women other than his wife . . ."

Like John Kerry, I lose a word here and there in my punchlines.

But the point is, again, that P_T sounds like Haggard: I bought it but I didn't smoke it; I lay with it but I didn't fuck it. I downloaded it, but didn't look. I have sexual urges that I just ignore.

Get real. When you hear hoofbeats, it's probably horses.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:32 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Paris Hilton: asks: Why are you people even responding to p_t?

You really weren't messing around with that user name....
posted by econous at 9:35 AM on November 5, 2006

I think there ought to be some sort of a moratorium on discussing other Mefites' masturbation habits. It's not a tenet or anything, but it seems like a rather silly tangent.
posted by clevershark at 9:37 AM on November 5, 2006

fourcheesemac annouces from his shapely ass: Consciousness is powerful, but not so much that it can override basic natural drives entirely, . Sounds like poo to mate. Do self immolation or hunger strikes count?
posted by econous at 9:44 AM on November 5, 2006

I think there ought to be some sort of a moratorium on discussing other Mefites' masturbation habits. It's not a tenet or anything, but it seems like a rather silly tangent.
Either flag it and move on, or take the damn thing to meta if you have to. I'm sick of all the derails in this thread. Hirsute fucking Jesus.
posted by econous at 9:48 AM on November 5, 2006

I'm sick of all the derails in this thread.

Well since the 'rail' is to point accusingly at the Gay Druggie Fundie, I'll take derails for $2000, Alex.
posted by boaz at 9:57 AM on November 5, 2006

Spit 'n' Thunder. I do wish p_T would hurry up in the bog, I said I'd cover for him for awhile, but now I need to go. I'm about to 'evolve' a little brown fish from my fissure.
posted by econous at 10:16 AM on November 5, 2006

I think there ought to be some sort of a moratorium on discussing other Mefites' masturbation habits. It's not a tenet or anything, but it seems like a rather silly tangent.

I belive we have an active moratorium on moratoria.
posted by Paris Hilton at 10:16 AM on November 5, 2006

I would just like to take this time to point out that possibly Ted Haggard was just taking the model of "God and His Church" seriously. I mean, if God and His Church (led by either a) Saint Peter and his replacements, or b) all those male megachurch leaders is meant to be the model for sexual relationships, I think that's even clearer than Ekekiel or Romans, yo. God = male (by most Chistian accounts) and Church = male, (in most Christian accounts). Make with the man love, all. It's man love or nothing. No no, it's not a mystery. It's a SIGN.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:19 AM on November 5, 2006

Haruspex: ...embraces an identity so brutally repressed in himself for so long by moving to some Colorado Springs of gay identity...

Stranger things have happened. He could become another Mel White. He could start another Cathedral of Hope.

I'm not holding my breath.
posted by Robert Angelo at 10:22 AM on November 5, 2006

verb: I have a couple self-identified celibate gay Christian acquaintances ready to blow Peeping_Thom's mind.

I know a few people like that, and one is a very close friend. As I said above, being gay is not a sin. And this isn't must my private opinion. The Catholic Church does not teach that being gay is a sin. I guess it's easier to call names and argue against straw men than it is to respond to what people you disagree with actually believe.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:43 AM on November 5, 2006

It's simple.

You believe that a loving relationship between two men, which has a sexual component, is a sin.

You're wrong. God doesn't give a fuck, Jesus didn't give a fuck, the only person who did was Paul. And he was just some guy--even your church agrees with that.

You are another homophobic bigot using what should be a message of peace and love to justify hatred. As such, you are completely irrelevant to the real world.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:46 AM on November 5, 2006

bardic: Civilized societies haven't been around that long, unfortunately. One of their hallmarks is, indeed, liberalism

That's just bullshit. There is a difference between barbaric societies and civilized societies. Most civilized societies have not been influenced by liberalism. Your use of the word "civilized" to mean "liberal" is very offensive.

If you want to argue that liberalism is the best basis for a civilized society, we can talk. (It may surprise you how close I can come to agreeing with you.) But if you want to claim that liberalism is the sine qua non for having a civilized society, then you are full of shit, and a benighted chauvinist to boot.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:50 AM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: You believe that a loving relationship between two men, which has a sexual component, is a sin.

That's idiotic. I believe nothing of the sort. There are plenty of perfectly admirable relationships between two men that have had a sexual component. Just because same-sex sexual activity is a sin, it doesn't follow that every relationship which includes same-sex sexual activity is a sin. That's assuming I can make sense of the idea of a relationship being a sin--a relationship isn't an action, and only actions are sins.

The most you can attribute to me is the view that a relationship between two men which has a sexual component is a relationship that includes sinful actions. That doesn't make it different from any other kind of relationship.

Please don't try to tell me what I believe. Or that "society agrees" with you.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 10:55 AM on November 5, 2006

And we haaaavve confession:

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life"

posted by dgaicun at 11:03 AM on November 5, 2006

His whole life is repulsive and dark--if he was honest with and about himself this wouldn't have happened.

And from the looks of them, there are tons more with "repulsive and dark" lives working at his church--did he recruit them all?
posted by amberglow at 11:09 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

This new religion (American evangelical) really has people spinning around, crazy. I love how the head the church is outed as druggie who uses male prostitutes, and people are still trying to defend the dude.

IN a lot of ways it's at the heart of what's wrong with American evangelicalism-- their supposed morals are completely fungible with immorality, as long as the sinner is "one of us". It's selfish tribalism, which I guess goes back to the heart of most religions but had been refreshingly absent in religioius leaders in America for much of its history.

Give me the religion of the founders any day.
posted by cell divide at 11:11 AM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "Just because same-sex sexual activity is a sin, it doesn't follow that every relationship which includes same-sex sexual activity is a sin"

I could use your brain as a corkscrew, I think. You are that twisted.

I've already said it: you're a bigot hiding behind Scripture to justify your bigotry. I am done with you. When you actually start living as Christ preached, I might listen to you.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:19 AM on November 5, 2006

Hate to interrupt the flamewar, but Haggard admits to sexual immorality
posted by The Deej at 11:26 AM on November 5, 2006

You're 23 minutes late, The Deej.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:29 AM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, what is twisted about distinguishing between a loving relationship between two people and the sexual activity that may or may not be part of that relationship?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:30 AM on November 5, 2006

As a Christian I can say with 100% certainty that being gay is not a sin. I almost feel embarrassed saying something so obvious. The highest value in Christianity is Love. Jesus said that the passions involved in sex are very strong and can get us into a lot of trouble (check the domestic homocide statistics). How can Christians do anything but bless two adults who decide to love each other without any obvious violent dysfunction. Jesus said essentially it is better to be married to someone you love and that loves you than to burn with lust, self-hatred and destroy yourself and others. There is a lack of love in the Fundies, which is obvious, they only love you and allow you to love others if you conform to their predilections and prejudices.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 11:31 AM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Because sex is part of just about any intimate relationship.

Now fuck off, you fucking homophobic bigoted asshole, and go back to living in the 1500's.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:32 AM on November 5, 2006

Well, crash, I waited a long while to post it, thinking someone surely would. Didn't re-read enough of the comments to see the other link. But, hey, it gives others twice as much of a chance to see the update.
posted by The Deej at 11:34 AM on November 5, 2006

The ONLY sin is lack of love.
posted by exlotuseater at 11:34 AM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: sex is part of just about any intimate relationship

Yes, and we distinguish between parts and wholes, right? What is twisted about saying that a relationship between two people can be quite a good, admirable thing, even though some part of that relationship, even an important part, is not? This is true for many kinds of relationship, right?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:40 AM on November 5, 2006

p_T, apparently you don't understand. I gave you a message about sex and travel. Please heed it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:42 AM on November 5, 2006

The essence of Christianity is that it doesn't want people murder and harm each other. It doesn't care what kind of sexual relationships people have, the only measure is whether those individual relationships between those people are loving and healthy and will not lead to violence, hatred, murder, to the people involved and others. Christianity teaches more about how to love each other and end destruction than about any arbitrary sexual practices.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 11:43 AM on November 5, 2006

A kind of act might be wrong, but a person who does that kind of act might be innocent because they are invincibly ignorant about it being wrong, for example if they live in a culture that tells them that wrong is right and have in good faith internalized those lies trusting that they are true.

You do realize this could just as easily be used to describe you as anyone else, right? You're making an argument from authority about Christianity; I can easily respond by saying that you've simply internalized its lies. And a rational outside observer would almost certainly agree with my assessment, since your beliefs depend entirely on your faith, which cannot be justified by rationality.

I don't have any interest in making judgments about what motivates you to engage in disordered sexual activity, or to make judgments about whether your disordered behavior is subjectively innocent or not.

Outside of your religious belief, there is no rational justification for thinking that homosexuality or homosexual behavior is disordered. You believe that the only appropriate kind of sexual contact is that which concludes with vaginal intercourse, because of the "link between sex and children," while at the same time you think that vaginal intercourse that cannot possibly result in children is OK. I believe any thought process that comes up with that conclusion is disordered.

Or that "society agrees" with you.

Agree or disagree with its rightness, society is certainly moving in that direction. I'm an out gay man who works as a business consultant. Would that have been possible twenty years ago? I joined my partner of nineteen years in a civil union, recognized by the state government. (Not MY state government, unfortunately ...) Would that have been possible ten years ago?

Nonsense. In 20 years? Never a few days alone?

I can believe that, actually. I'm not saying I haven't, but it's very rare nowadays, and if I believed it was morally wrong I could give it up if I had to. It would be nice to tone down the level of nastiness in people's responses to p_T, who has been pretty civil.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:54 AM on November 5, 2006

BEEEPBEEEPBEEPBEEEEEPBEEEP!!!!

someon'es gaydar needs a tune-up!
posted by matteo at 12:00 PM on November 5, 2006

You know, this is starting to make me sad. Not Thomist's torturous evasions - that's gone on so long, with such an openly masturbatory quality ("This is how I do my wife! You should do it that way too!") it's become a spectacle worthy of its own thread I'm talking about Haggard.

If the man had just an ounce more courage, a fraction more self-respect, he could have done some real good. He's obviously tried to dance a line in the past - despite all the demon-talk, his history indicates he's one of the lesser evangelicals when it comes to the "gay sex == hellfire" line.

I imagine him growing up in the church, or becoming born again. The dark, sweaty nights of alternate fantasy and prayer. And that moment, or series of moments, when he saw that following the evangelical church line against homosexuality was the fastest way to promotion and power in the organisation. And decided to hide, and lie.

He's obvious charismatic. A charming preacher. If he'd had the strength to drop the charade, to come out and be both born-again and gay, he could have made a real difference. Would he have had the same power, the same audience? Highly unlikely. And the path would have been considerably harder. But one so much truer to himself, and to many others.

As it is, he's gone back. That letter to his church prompted a standing ovation, apparently. I guess he'd far rather have the approval of 10,000 bigots than the support of a million gay men.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 12:07 PM on November 5, 2006

p_T, who has been pretty civil.

By no means. Simply because he tries to avoid direct personal attacks doesn't make him civil (and "you are full of shit" is certainly uncivil).

He misstates, lies, shows bigotry, prejudice, hypocrisy and 'hatred of the other'. He is blinded by dogma and does not contribute in any way to any discussion.

He deserves nothing but contempt. It would be nice to ramp up the level of nastiness in peoples' responses to him.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:12 PM on November 5, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: You do realize this could just as easily be used to describe you as anyone else, right?

Certainly. In fact I seem to be one of the few people in this discussion who takes seriously the possibility that I might be wrong. Consider bardic and others who insist that the only societies that are civilized are liberal ones, and that God must agree with them about a laundry list of political matters before they will listen to him.

I thought it was amazing when Bora Horza Gobuchul went on preaching about "what if you are wrong" without seeming to notice that the obvious next question is "what if I am wrong".

me_&_my_monkey: Outside of your religious belief, there is no rational justification for thinking that homosexuality or homosexual behavior is disordered.

That is demonstrably false. Allow me now to demonstrate that it is false.

me_&_my_monkey: You believe that the only appropriate kind of sexual contact is that which concludes with vaginal intercourse, because of the "link between sex and children," while at the same time you think that vaginal intercourse that cannot possibly result in children is OK. I believe any thought process that comes up with that conclusion is disordered.

That's because you haven't thought enough about what the phrase "kind of action" means, and about how act-descriptions work. These are long-standing questions in the philosophy of action. We don't need to settle them (and can't settle them) here for me to make the point that the philosophy of action is something different from religious belief. Hence your claim that "outside of your religious belief there is no rational justification for thinking that homosexual behavior is disordered" is false.

Still, let me put it as simply as possible: a man and woman who perform the marital act (even if the woman is in the infertile time of her cycle or has passed through menopause) are doing a different kind of action from two men, or two women, or a man and a woman who are engaged in other forms of sexual activity.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:13 PM on November 5, 2006

He's obviously tried to dance a line in the past - despite all the demon-talk, his history indicates he's one of the lesser evangelicals when it comes to the "gay sex == hellfire" line.

Yeah, he appears to have been almost moderate:

"Rob Brendle, an associate New Life pastor, said Haggard fought to make Amendment 43 only define marriage, breaking with other evangelical leaders who favored a broader measure barring domestic partnerships. Haggard has said marriage deserves special status, while civil protections should be a separate issue."

I guess he'd far rather have the approval of 10,000 bigots than the support of a million gay men.

In his defense, he probably actually believes that homosexuality is wrong.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:16 PM on November 5, 2006

And from the looks of them, there are tons more with "repulsive and dark" lives working at his church--did he recruit them all? WTF have their looks got to do with it. How typical.
posted by econous at 12:21 PM on November 5, 2006

I've already said it: you're a bigot hiding behind Scripture to justify your bigotry. I am done with you. When you actually start living as Christ preached, I might listen to you.

He seems to be doing a rather good job of that. You could learn something, once you get over the histrionics.
posted by econous at 12:25 PM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "Still, let me put it as simply as possible: a man and woman who perform the marital act (even if the woman is in the infertile time of her cycle or has passed through menopause) are doing a different kind of action from two men, or two women, or a man and a woman who are engaged in other forms of sexual activity."

Oh my God I cannot resist this gem.

IF EITHER OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE ARE INFERTILE, THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING DIFFERENT ACTS FROM A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE. THEY ARE PERFORMING A PHYSICAL ACT OF PLEASURE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT ALSO HAVE LOVE AS A COMPONENT.

YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID AND FUCKED UP ABOUT SEX THAT IT HURTS TO READ YOUR FILTH.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:26 PM on November 5, 2006

Does anyone have a link to Ted's letter? The news stories just give excerpts, but I can't get a feel for it without seeing the whole thing. It sounds like he's still saying Jones is lying, but not saying what Jones is lying about. That is bad, I think. He should either say Jones is telling the truth, or say exactly what Jones is saying that is not true.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:28 PM on November 5, 2006

econous writes "He seems to be doing a rather good job of that. You could learn something, once you get over the histrionics."

No, he isn't doing a good job of that at all. Christ preached love. Feed and clothe the poor. Get the moneylenders out of the Temple. He never said word one about faggots and dykes. He explicitly told people not to judge.

I don't know where you came from, you little troll, but why don't you go back there until you can actually contribute something other than popping up to split semantic hairs and/or troll my statements?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:29 PM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, you seem to be forgetting that sex is non-arbitrarily linked to babies.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:29 PM on November 5, 2006

Nonsense. In 20 years? Never a few days alone? Every sexual feeling immediately centered on one person who is always available?

4cm, you are an utter twit. Just because you apparently can't keep your hands off your junk does not mean p_t and others fail to do so.

I completely fail to understand why you can not accept that some people are capable of sexual behaviours that you can not maintain.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 PM on November 5, 2006

Still, let me put it as simply as possible: a man and woman who perform the marital act (even if the woman is in the infertile time of her cycle or has passed through menopause) are doing a different kind of action from two men, or two women, or a man and a woman who are engaged in other forms of sexual activity.

No, they're all trying to get off. They may or may not love each other. Only if a heterosexual couple is actively trying to conceive is their act any different, and then only marginally so.

Please leave, p_t. You should have cut your losses 800 comments ago.
posted by SBMike at 12:39 PM on November 5, 2006

me_&_my_monkey: In his defense, he probably actually believes that homosexuality is wrong.

Here's my take on it: evangelicals are theological illiterates, and don't take nature seriously enough. They can't make sense of the fact that some people are homosexually oriented. So Ted doesn't have the option, as a Catholic would, of acknowledging that he is a homosexual. Hence he has to do a lot of tap-dancing. It's very sad.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:42 PM on November 5, 2006

That letter to his church prompted a standing ovation, apparently.

Actually --

"While the letter was read, more than 7,000 people in attendance sat in silence, some of them weeping. The letter was read by Larry Stockstill, who leads a church outside Baton Rouge, La., that is considered the 'mother church of New Life.'

After the letter was read, there was brief applause with a smattering of people standing."

[Denver Post]
posted by ericb at 12:42 PM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes "dirtynumbangelboy, you seem to be forgetting that sex is non-arbitrarily linked to babies."

Sexual pleasure is not, you wilfully obtuse little shit. Fuck off.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:43 PM on November 5, 2006

SBMike: Only if a heterosexual couple is actively trying to conceive is their act any different, and then only marginally so.

You are equating actions with intentions. They aren't the same thing. Two people can perform the same kind of action with different intentions.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:46 PM on November 5, 2006

The letter
posted by The Deej at 12:49 PM on November 5, 2006

Peeping, I think the thing you're forgetting about here is how much damage these views have caused to gay people world wide. In fact, the entire discussion by you and konolia in particular has sidestepped that damage (and the damage done by Ted Haggard and his megachurch), and your conversation with angelboy (who is understandably hurt and angry but religious people who seek to force him to repent and feel guilty and dirty and unworthy) only highlights that. You can privilege your nonsensical sexual beliefs all you like, but please realize that setting them out to us as "truth" and suggesting that they're based on rational fact rather than Christian faith is exactly the kind of thing those of us who are not heterosexuals face as weapons pointed at us every single day. If you care about tending to the wounded and providing comfort to the outcast, perhaps you would spend more time helping gay people to heal from these outrageous wounds doled out by people proclaiming your faith, rather than rubbing salt in them here at metafilter.
posted by Hildegarde at 12:50 PM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

You are equating sophmoric, hair-splitting, inconsistent nonsense with the logical discourse that is supposed to happen on this site. They aren't the same thing.
posted by SBMike at 12:53 PM on November 5, 2006

I've read his letter of apology and a letter from his wife. I'm dismayed that he describes his comments from earlier in the week as "inconsistent" rather than as "lies". He also accused Jones of lying (by saying that the accusations are not all true), without saying about what. This is not good, in my opinion.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:54 PM on November 5, 2006

Peeping, I think the thing you're forgetting about here is how much damage these views have caused to gay people world wide.

Exactly. But it's not past tense, and it's been growing with the mainstreaming of people like Haggard and the politicians who use them.
posted by amberglow at 12:55 PM on November 5, 2006

I've read his letter of apology and a letter from his wife. I'm dismayed that he describes his comments from earlier in the week as "inconsistent" rather than as "lies".

What are you talking about? he says: "I am a deceiver and a liar."
posted by delmoi at 1:02 PM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy pretty much everyone here agrees with you I don't see why you need to be so nasty to the guy. I understand his views are pretty spaced out, and that you find them personally offensive. But they are based on made up crap, not reality. I'm kinda pleased that you think I can split semantic hairs though.
posted by econous at 1:03 PM on November 5, 2006

Meh. It seems to me that Haggard is still desperately clinging to the "more religion will cure me of teh ghey" mantra which has so far abjectly failed him. Is opposition to homosexuality such an essential tenet of American protestantism that it cannot endure being revisited with a critical eye? One with eyes can choose not to see, with ears can choose not to hear, I suppose.
posted by clevershark at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2006

Hildegarde: I think the thing you're forgetting about here is how much damage these views have caused to gay people world wide

I can see why you might think I am forgetting about that, since all you see of me is what I post to mefi. In fact, however, it is very difficult for me to ever forget the point you are making. A close family member of mine was murdered nearly 30 years ago just for being gay (killing a homosexual was a form of gang initiation at the time), and I take very seriously how evil homophobia is. If I believed that my trying to speak the truth as I understand it in this discussion would increase homophobia, I would immediately stop. I do not believe it is having that effect.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:07 PM on November 5, 2006

delmoi, he doesn't call his earlier statements lies.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:09 PM on November 5, 2006

Point taken, amberglow. Very much taken. Let me rephrase that to how much damage these views have caused and continue to cause to gay people world wide.

and econous: you said "I don't see why you need to be so nasty to the guy": again, angelboy's anger is entirely justified, given the damage that's been (and continues to be) caused. The pretense that this is all just a little conversation with no real life implications is unfair. Some people gain privilege from these beliefs, and some suffer. Anger is the least damaging result.
posted by Hildegarde at 1:10 PM on November 5, 2006

But they are based on made up crap, not reality.

Exactly. Believing that one person is divine and following his teachings is kinda nuts, but believing a whole papal succession has a line to the divine is a whole other level. Suddenly your sexual theology doesn't just have to square with Jesus' words, but also Pius I's pronouncement on scrotums in 784AD. Fortunately, most Catholics solve this problem by ignoring it, which, now that we've seen the alternative, seems infinitely pragmatic.
posted by boaz at 1:15 PM on November 5, 2006

And from the looks of them, there are tons more with "repulsive and dark" lives working at his church--did he recruit them all? WTF have their looks got to do with it. How typical.
posted by econous at 2:21 PM CST on November 5


It's teh gaydar, of course!
posted by Robert Angelo at 1:26 PM on November 5, 2006

So Haggard confessed.

Looks like you were full of shit again, konolia. I'm sure you'll be back soon to admit it. I look forward to your agonizing justification.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:26 PM on November 5, 2006

Wait a minute, he's going to be recieving counseling from James Dobson? A man famous for going mano a mano with a weiner dog named Sigmund Frued? This entire wing of the evangelical movement is just perverse.
posted by maryh at 1:28 PM on November 5, 2006

That letter in itself, and the language that he uses, is such a very sad, but perfectly appropriate, exhibit of the damage done by and the tragedy of the closet-- how it warps and twists what should have been one of the best parts of his life. I pity the man.

And then I think of the damage he has done to so many, and to the fabric of his society and country during his personal battle with his nature, and I don't.
posted by jokeefe at 1:34 PM on November 5, 2006

Optimus Chyme writes "So Haggard confessed.

"Looks like you were full of shit again, konolia. I'm sure you'll be back soon to admit it. I look forward to your agonizing justification."

HAHAHAHAAHAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHHA

You're joking, right? That would presuppose that she would actually respond to a direct point or question. She's neither intelligent nor courageous enough to do that.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:35 PM on November 5, 2006

...you wilfully obtuse little shit. Fuck off.

Can somebody please collect the screaming little child over here? He needs to sit down for a bit in the time-out chair.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 1:36 PM on November 5, 2006

Is opposition to homosexuality such an essential tenet of American protestantism that it cannot endure being revisited with a critical eye?

No.
posted by booksandlibretti at 1:40 PM on November 5, 2006

Mrs. Betty Bowers' Words of Christian Concern for Ted Haggard's Delicious Disgrace--... It is quite clear that Ted Haggard is a man with admirable devotion to the Christian/GOP cause. After all, it must take enormous willpower for a meth-crazed sodomite to remove a penis from his mouth long enough to denounce homosexuality. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:42 PM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

Wow, 1145-some posts! Is this the longest thread ever?
posted by c13 at 1:46 PM on November 5, 2006

Hildegarde, thank you for your post, which was beautifully written and sums up what I'm feeling.

Peeping-Thom: "If I believed that my trying to speak the truth as I understand it in this discussion would increase homophobia, I would immediately stop. I do not believe it is having that effect."

She did not say she thought your comments were increasing homophobia. She said they were like rubbing salt in open wounds. She is right.

On another note, I am very sorry to hear about the close family memeber of yours who was murdered. A gay friend of a friend of mine in college was also murdered in a gay-bashing incident, and even though I had met him only once it shook me up. I can only imagine what that must have been like for you.

Given that news, and your assertion that you don't think gay people are sinful or condemned to hell, and that your views are different from the fundies--I am genuinely puzzled as to why you would keep repeating your views on sacred vs. unsacred sex. It may seem like an innocent thing to you, but it's really quite degrading and judgmental--even if this is your religious belief.
posted by mijuta at 1:46 PM on November 5, 2006

me & my monkey: In his defense, he probably actually believes that homosexuality is wrong. black people aren't humans.

I know you weren't trying to excuse the guy, m&mm, but just because someone "actually" believes something abhorrent, that doesn't make it ok.

And by the way... peeping_Thomist = troll. A Christian troll, maybe, but a troll nonetheless.
posted by papakwanz at 1:49 PM on November 5, 2006

LOL, Amberglow! Thanks!
posted by Robert Angelo at 1:52 PM on November 5, 2006

Having just read Haggard's letter, I say: damn, that's a good letter. No mealymouthed excuse-making: he owns his actions and is accepting the consequences without whining. Whatever his other qualities, it seems Ted Haggard is a lot more man than most of the fallen evangels.

This bit weirds me, though: "On the day he accepted this new role, he and his wife, Aimee, had a new baby boy. A new life in the midst of this circumstance - I consider the confluence of events to be prophetic."

Prophetic? That seems like a very strange thought.

Anyone with skill in NLP or evangel coding able to read between the lines? As a literal read, his letter is very good. With insider knowledge, though, perhaps it says something very different.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:53 PM on November 5, 2006

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese writes "Can somebody please collect the screaming little child over here? He needs to sit down for a bit in the time-out chair."

And you need to STFU. Sorry, what was your point again?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:57 PM on November 5, 2006

p_t, you seem like a reasonable fellow, considering that I disagree to an astonishing degree with just about everything you have said, so I'm going to try to post some of my thoughts in response to yours in a reasonable manner.

1) Part of the problem here is your implicit (or stated, I'm not sure which) belief that homosexual intercourse is a sin. "Sin", as a concept and a word, is likely to do nothing but anger those on the other side of the argument from you without communicating any information, for the following reason -

To the nonchristian ear, "sin" means "somethat that is wrong simply because it has been said to be wrong, requiring no more justification that that it has been said to be wrong." It DOES NOT MATTER if that is not what you meant, because that is what people hear, and if you use that word it is what people will believe you mean unless you very carefully explain otherwise. By then it may already be too late, because many will have stopped listening.

The reason for that is that the implication is infuriating to people who engage in the "sinful" practice, because they see you as basically saying "what you do it wrong and evil, for no particular reason and I have no need to explain myself."

2) In the latter parts of this dialogue, you have, to do you credit, attempted to explain (for those who were still paying any attention to you at that point) WHY you believed homosexuality to be a moral evil. The problem here is that your arguments simply make no sense to anyone who is not already Christian, and therefore have no chance whatsoever of reaching your intended argument. For example, one of your arguments seems to be:

"Heterosexual relationship that take place within the bounds of marriage are the highest ideal for relationships because they mimic that of Christ with the Church."

I hope it will be obvious why this argument is simply irrelevant to anyone who does not already believe what you believe. It is equivalent, to them, of your saying, "because they mimic the relationship between U2 and The Edge." You may firmly believe that what you say is true, but it simply holds no meaning to anyone not of your religion.

The next argument you make is somewhat subtler in why it does not communicate:

"Heterosexual intercourse is morally superior because it either is or closely mimics the kind of intercourse used for human reproduction."

This, while it seems to be divorced eligious principles at first, makes no sense without certain assumptions which are entirely based in the axioms of your religions, among them:

A) The purpose of intercourse is to reproduce
B) Something which mimics an ideal action closely is closer to the idea than something which does not

To many nonchristians, reproduction is merely one of many possible results of intercourse (the two are, as you point out, nonarbitrarily connected, but as many have replied, they are not identical, nor does one always follow from the other), and attributing a "purpose" to a biological action is entirely arbitrary. This is not to say that actions do not have purposes; it reflects the belief that actions can have many purposes, and there is no acknowledgement of an "ideal purpose" because there is no acknowledgement of an authority imposing such a thing.

The second point is irrelevant to the discussion without belief in the first, but even it seems to be much more of a quirk of theology rather than a principle with a basis in anything else. I suppose hairs could be split about this, but it seems pretty pointless, considering.

3) Because of these, and similar issues, your arguments MAKE NO SENSE to anyone who does not ALREADY BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE. If you wish to get across to them, which you may not want to bother to do, you will need to either convert them or make arguments which make sense within their frame of reference, such as by demonstrating that performing a homosexual act causes inarguable harm to another person, which many nonchristians believe is a standard by which to judge moral wrong. I wish you much luck in either, as I believe both to be impossible.

4) I realize that these comments could as easily apply to those trying to argue with you; I single you rather than them out because I agree with them. But, yes, I think their arguments are likely to be impossible to reach you because you are probably outside their frame of reference; you do not believe that moral wrong derives from substantive harm, but from the word of god.

5) Therefore, I think the arguments on both sides are not really attempts to convince each other, but to convert each other, to literally change their entire frame of reference so that the arguments being made make sense. I do not think this is likely to happen within the course of a metafilter discussion.

6) That being said ... one of the reasons I think people are continuing to try to argue with you is that you have shown some belief that substantive harm = moral wrong (e.g., by stating that you think your beliefs do not lead to dangerous homophobia, and that you would be horrified if they were.) Possibly you believe that substantive harm is connected implicitly with the commandments of your god, but in either case, you do seem to think it's a factor. Therefore, even though it may be pointless, I am still going to attempt to putin an argument for my point of view, in the hopes that it will get through.

I think your beliefs DO contribute to homophobia. While I am sure that you would never kill a gay man for being gay, and I am horrified by what happened to your relative, I genuinely think that your attitude, and the attitude of those like you, forms the basis of the homophobia that expresses itself as violence.

You may point out that believing something is a sin does not necessarily lead to this - after all, no one kills adulterers. But they used to. They used to stone them to death. The fact is, most people really don't consider adultery much of a sin anymore, which is why that stopped.

So believe homosexual acts are sins or don't, but please don't try to divorce your believe from the violence being enacted against homosexuals worldwide. The two are intimately connected. And that is the main reason so many react to what you say with rage.
posted by kyrademon at 1:59 PM on November 5, 2006 [13 favorites]

Well said, kyrademon. And mijuta: I've got your back, man. Aww, come on everyone, another group hug. *squeezes*
posted by Hildegarde at 2:09 PM on November 5, 2006

The letter has your typical Evangelical understanding of the basis of truth and authority. Evangelicals, for all their talk about the Bible, understand authority and truth to be based in the crowd. Haggard has spent his career providing scapegoats to the crowd, now he has to provide himself as a scapegoat to the crowd. Haggard has to sacrifice himself so that his Church and the Evangelical movement in general can still believe they are righteous. Reference his focus on himself and absolving the crowd of responsibility for their endless pursuit of scapegoats. Haggard focused so much on the Scapegoat that he became one himself.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 2:11 PM on November 5, 2006

kyrademon-- that is an excellent, excellent post. The only thing I'd add to it is that, as booksandlibretti (and others, but I'll focus on one person's comments) has pointed out, repeatedly, on this thread, it is far from a truth universally acknowledged that homosexuality is intrinsically evil even if you accept the Christian framework.

fff, I agree that it's a terrifically written letter. That his wife wrote a letter is... well, it's touching, and I hope that there's plenty of love and happiness in this world for her. It's beyond sad, though, and all too predictable, that they are refraining from using their God-given reason to reassess their notions about homosexuality. Of course, if you view it as part and parcel of life with prostitutes and meth, I guess it's not a huge leap to feel ashamed.

That's why, when my girlfriend shrugged off Neil Patrick Harris's coming out, I said it was at least one more person who's been in most people's homes on TV hopefully helping people see that homosexuality is no more a sinful affliction than Jewishness or skin pigmentation. We've come a long way on those others in the past 40 years; we've come a long way on how gays are viewed of late, too.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:18 PM on November 5, 2006

Sorry, what was your point again?

Did you really miss the point? My point is, your comments sound like those of a snotty little kid throwing a tantrum when somebody says something he doesn't like:

"you wilfully obtuse little shit. Fuck off."

"YOU ARE SO FUCKING STUPID AND FUCKED UP ABOUT SEX THAT IT HURTS TO READ YOUR FILTH."

"Now fuck off, you fucking homophobic bigoted asshole"

"Fuck the hell off."

This seems to be an issue you feel strongly about, but calling people trolls and telling them to "STFU" and "fuck off", is a childish way to debate it.

And this: p_T, apparently you don't understand. I gave you a message about sex and travel. Please heed it.

Who are you to order a member to stop commenting?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:20 PM on November 5, 2006

I'm ordering all of you to go read my Betty Bower link, ok? chill.

Now who thinks this will lead to that church (and others) doing witchhunts?
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on November 5, 2006

amberglow writes "Now who thinks this will lead to that church (and others) doing witchhunts?"

Well if Haggard himself doesn't get the message, what hope is there for people who are merely bystanders in that particular drama?
posted by clevershark at 2:38 PM on November 5, 2006

Pastor Ted's Wheel of Excuses.
posted by ericb at 2:44 PM on November 5, 2006

Haggard hasn't grown as a man or a Christian at all. His whole career has been one of providing Scapegoats for the Evangelicals. The only thing that's changed is that now he has to provide himself as a scapegoat. No questioning of the Evangelical thirst for scapegoats and sacrifices, no call for the end of scapegoating. He's like one the victims in the Soviet show trials, he must be convinced of his own guilt. Ted Haggard has become a scapegoat. The real evil is in his congregation. They are the ones who demand scapegoats, Ted Haggard only became what they wanted him to become. They're God is not the Christian god, their god is their Scapegoat. The scapegoat is the one who they circle around.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 2:46 PM on November 5, 2006

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese writes "Did you really miss the point? My point is, your comments sound like those of a snotty little kid throwing a tantrum when somebody says something he doesn't like:"

And as you ahve clearly missed, I am enraged by this bullshit, and even more so by the people who are apologists for it. Don't like it? Don't read it.

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese writes "Who are you to order a member to stop commenting?"

To stop talking directly to me, actually.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:49 PM on November 5, 2006

"Now who thinks this will lead to that church (and others) doing witchhunts?"

It's just my wishful thinking, but I'm imagining those twinkie church assistant pastors teaching the Air Force Academy cadets to "make love, not war."

Nah...
posted by Robert Angelo at 2:53 PM on November 5, 2006

Jesus said essentially it is better to be married to someone you love and that loves you than to burn with lust, self-hatred and destroy yourself and others.

erm, that would have been paul, not jesus.
posted by quonsar at 2:58 PM on November 5, 2006

FFF, as to the baby being born being "prophetic," he (and actually I) see it as a symbol of a new beginning for the church and the congregation. We believe that occasionally God has things happen that way. At least that is the best way I know to explain it. But yes, it is a typical thing for one of our type of church to say.

Well, my son was at one of the services there today and heard the letters being read. He and his buddy had to stand at the back of the church as (obviously) it was packed out.

Meanwhile I will confess to my failed gaydar (in my defense that was a long time ago and it has been back to the factory to be recalibrated since.) But seriously, you have to understand that this is not the sort of thing i could have expected from this particular man-even tho this is not the first time I have been around men of the cloth who were, shall we say, not what they claimed to be.

I never want to believe the worst of anyone. If someone accused Mathowie or jonmc or one of the rest of you of some astounding crime my first thought would not be that that sob must be guilty as heck, throw away the key...part of the extreme hurt of the Haggard situation is this very thing of -"of all people why HIM???"

Meanwhile I still have to say that God indeed cares very much what we do with our sexual parts, and love as compassion and caring and love as eros are two different things. The Bible teaches over and over that sex belongs to the marriage relationship, which is between a man and a woman. You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where a homosexual or lesbian act is described as good. NOT ONE.

I understand that the longing and urges for gay people are true longings and true urges. I am not in any way minimizing that. But the whole problem of mankind period is that we want our own way and not God's. We rebel against Him because we want to do what we want to do whether it is sleep with a succession of people or with a person of the same sex, or cheat on a spouse, or eat too much, or drink ourselves to death, and so on.

Sex is fun but it is also holy. God has promised in His word to judge the sexually immoral. I do not believe that is just after death. He judges us here which is why we are exhorted to run to Him to find mercy and grace and deliverance from our sinful natures. We cannot and will not get rid of them on our own, as Haggard so sadly proves. For him, his urges were an addiction, a craving greater than his love for his Saviour. May he find some peace-he's in quite a bit of hell right here and right now.

I don't ever condone being mean to gay people. I believe they need to have jobs and places to live just like anyone else. I draw the line at gay marriage because I believe by definition there cannot be such a thing-and because I believe God will judge a society that would allow such a thing-a judgement that would fall on all of us, gay or straight. I am sorry that some folks find that hateful. But one thing I do hate and that is sin. I need to hate it more than I do-and no one hates it more than the Lord God Almighty. I need to hate it in myself most of all-but I cannot and I will not call evil good just so dirtynumbangelboy will feel better. That would be a lie and would do neither him nor me any favors. I would rather you all hear this stuff from me than on judgement day when it is too late. On that day you would be cursing me way more vehemenently than you are now if I had refrained from speaking to you.

I refuse to have your blood on my hands. If I kept silent, that is exactly what would happen.
posted by konolia at 3:01 PM on November 5, 2006

firestorm in 3,2,1...
posted by quonsar at 3:04 PM on November 5, 2006

Haggard and the White House: Both Living in Denial

"Let's face it: the Bush administration is sick. The fall of Ted Haggard is just the latest manifestation of the central disease of President Bush and his cohorts: the pathological refusal to accept reality, and the delusion that reality can be changed by rhetoric.

As Andrew Sullivan said last week on CNN, 'this is not an election anymore, it's an intervention.'

But while it's the administration that's sick, it's the whole country that's suffering.

How many more examples of this disease do we need? The insurgency is in its 'last throes,' we've 'turned the corner' in Iraq, gutting Social Security would 'save' it, global warming doesn't exist, evolution is just 'a theory,' Rumsfeld and Cheney are 'doing a fantastic job,' etc., etc., etc.

Mark Foley and Ted Haggard are textbook examples of how the relentless denial of reality perverts judgment and rots the soul. Same with the Bushies.

...The refusal by the Bush administration, its supporters in Congress and its 'spiritual advisors' to acknowledge reality is sick -- and potentially lethal to the well-being of our country. But it's clear they're not going to get better, because to do so would require they acknowledge reality enough to know they're sick in the first place. And they're not going to do that. They actually believe there's an alternative to the 'reality-based world,' and that they live in it."

posted by ericb at 3:05 PM on November 5, 2006

Thanks for your concern for our souls, Konolia.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 3:05 PM on November 5, 2006

I draw the line at gay marriage

Thank God, I live in Massachusetts!
posted by ericb at 3:08 PM on November 5, 2006

"You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where a homosexual or lesbian act is described as good. NOT ONE."

As with so much else, that really depends on your interpretation.

"And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his ... girdle."

"And it came to pass ... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."

"Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

And so on. Inarguable? Of course not. But neither is a phrase from Leviticus that literally translates to "You should not have sex with a man in a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean", although it is often rendered "lie with a man as with a woman".

Not that I really care, because, well, it's not my religion and the book has no meaning to me other than historical, but frankly it's an iffy point even if you think it *is* literally true; meanings and interpretations change, as do translations and emphases.

But anyway, Konolia, I am sure you think you mean only the best for me. But I do not believe as you believe, and I think that you and those like you are causing me and those like me demonstrable harm. Therefore, by my standards, it is you, not me, who is morally in the wrong. I doubt we will ever find a meeting ground on this point.
posted by kyrademon at 3:17 PM on November 5, 2006 [4 favorites]

I draw the line at gay marriage because I believe by definition there cannot be such a thing-and because I believe God will judge a society that would allow such a thing-a judgement that would fall on all of us, gay or straight.

So, what's your position on those Christians who regard(ed) interracial marriage to be a sin and a detriment to society?

What are your thoughts about the Biblical Argument for American slavery ?
posted by ericb at 3:17 PM on November 5, 2006

Kyrademon, that may be the best message I have ever had the pleasure of reading on MeFi. You are a superlative writer. Thank you.

Konolia, I think we can all have a better understanding of you if you will answer one simple question:

Do you support laws that prevent gay couples from joining in civil union?

You need to answer this because it's where the rubber meets the road: do you or do you not impose your religion on others?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:20 PM on November 5, 2006

Don't bother, ericb. She's too dishonest to actually respond to questions that could shake her little worldview.

konolia writes "You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where a homosexual or lesbian act is described as good. NOT ONE."

You still, you dishonest little turnip, haven't shown me where Jesus condemns gay relationships. When you can do that, perhaps, maybe, we will listen.

Actually, we won't--you're just promoting hate.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:24 PM on November 5, 2006

Wow, we are now fast closing on 1200 comments, many of them made in anger, and this thing is still not in MetaTalk. That has to be a MetaRecord.
posted by caddis at 3:26 PM on November 5, 2006

Thanks, fff. :) I was worried it was going to be too long and boring ...

Incidentally, for those of you who are curious about the literal translation of the Leviticus passage:

"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

means

"And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman; it is ritually unclean."

In order to be interpreted as being against homosexuality, it was instead parsed as

"And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman; it is ritually unclean."

(In the modern era, it is now most frequently rendered as "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination", or similar.)

The second one ("lay [as the] lyings of a woman") has always seemed like a rather tortuous translation compared to ("lay [in the] lyings of a woman"), which, to me, at least, seems to make a good deal more sense.

It'd be an interesting minor quibble over a point of translation if it hadn't led to so much death and horror, really. :P
posted by kyrademon at 3:30 PM on November 5, 2006 [4 favorites]

this thing is still not in MetaTalk

There is a MetaTalk thread.

And this tidbit was just added there by Konolia:

"Late back to this thread...perhaps some of you might feel it is mildly ironic that my son-in-law is African American and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial.

I have been active in racial reconciliation movements here locally and I resent the comparison to gay rights.

That is all."

So, it seems she is quite selective in interpreting biblical directives.
posted by ericb at 3:31 PM on November 5, 2006

We cannot and will not get rid of them on our own, as Haggard so sadly proves

No, what Haggard proves is God won't get rid of them either. No matter how hard anyone wants him to.

On preview:Wow, we are now fast closing on 1200 comments, many of them made in anger, and this thing is still not in MetaTalk.

What do you mean? It's been Meta'd twice already.
posted by boaz at 3:32 PM on November 5, 2006

So, what's your position on those Christians who regard(ed) interracial marriage to be a sin and a detriment to society?

Well, my son-in-law is black and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial. Does that answer your question?

FFF, I assume you mean civil union instead of marriage. In one sense I really would not care but in the broader sense I think that a society that winks at immorality of any sort is a society in big trouble. Of course, our society IS in big trouble, gay marriage or no gay marriage.

I am old enough to remember when heterosexual couples who were not married would have to dodge hotel detectives and/or sign a false "Mr and Mrs" when signing in to the hotel in the first place. Society as a whole frowned on immorality (while admittedly many participated in it secretly) but the consensus was at that time that certain things were wrong and not to be encouraged.

I will say that altho I would personally not agree with civil unions in that sense, if I had to choose between that and gay marriage, I would find the former to be more intellectualy honest. There are certain civil rights that I would have no problem extending to gay couples but I wish that could be done without trying to present it as a true equivalent to marriage.

If it matters I don't believe in theocracy in a civil sense, either. I think it would be a disaster and I wish the church would get out of bed with the politicians. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. I am not saying a christian should never be politically active but some stuff I see with the religious right makes me puke and is no credit to Christianity.
posted by konolia at 3:32 PM on November 5, 2006

caddis, this thread has made it to Metatalk.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:32 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

You still, you dishonest little turnip, haven't shown me where Jesus condemns gay relationships. When you can do that, perhaps, maybe, we will listen.

Not I. As I wrote above, there are very specific circumstances under which I will listen to konlia's bigotry. There is no reason to trust the reading comprehension and interpreting powers of a representative of a group that believes the Biblical priority is on homosexuality over caring for the poor. New Life Church was really expensive to build and even expensive to staff and maintain and run; meanwhile the congregation that commutes there could be spending time in their own nieghboorhoods and towns and giving their money to honest-to-god ministries that feed the poor. The original Christians, like the ones described in the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts, lived in voluntary poverty and spent their money and time working for the poor and oppressed. When the evangelicals do that, I'll give a shit about how they read the Bible. As it is, they prove that they can't comprehend or follow the basic instructions of Christ, so why should they be trusted interpreting the Bible?
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:34 PM on November 5, 2006

You still, you dishonest little turnip, haven't shown me where Jesus condemns gay relationships. When you can do that, perhaps, maybe, we will listen.

Not I. As I wrote above, there are very specific circumstances under which I will listen to konlia's bigotry. There is no reason to trust the reading comprehension and interpreting powers of a representative of a group that believes the Biblical priority is on homosexuality over caring for the poor. New Life Church was really expensive to build and even expensive to staff and maintain and run; meanwhile the congregation that commutes there could be spending time in their own nieghboorhoods and towns and giving their money to honest-to-god ministries that feed the poor. The original Christians, like the ones described in the 2nd chapter of the book of Acts, lived in voluntary poverty and spent their money and time working for the poor and oppressed. When the evangelicals do that, I'll give a shit about how they read the Bible. As it is, they prove that they can't comprehend or follow the basic instructions of Christ, so why should they be trusted interpreting the Bible?
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:34 PM on November 5, 2006

kyrademon, thanks for the thoughtful comments. I have to be away from the computer for the next day, but I'll post a reply soon. I hope I will be able to clear up some (understandable) confusions in your remarks.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:36 PM on November 5, 2006

I'll be happy to read it whenever you get it posted. I'm going to march in the Day of the Dead procession here now, so I'll be off for a while, too.
posted by kyrademon at 3:43 PM on November 5, 2006

Well, my son-in-law is black and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial. Does that answer your question?

That doesn't answer the question. Let's try this -- how do you feel about those Christians who condemn interracial marriage and would consider your biracial grandson to be an abomination in the eyes of their Lord? And what happens if your grandson turns out to be "gay?" What then?
posted by ericb at 3:45 PM on November 5, 2006

BTW -- konolia -- some of my best friends are black! ;)
posted by ericb at 3:49 PM on November 5, 2006

There's a delicious ironic symmetry between Haggard's refusal/inability to see the real root of his current troubles and konolia's refusal/inability to see parallels between respect for non-traditional couples from both the racial and gender perspective -- her "resentment" even that her "pure" struggle should be tainted with "teh ghey". Not that she hasn't already pissed off enough people who can now be counted on to do whatever she avers to resenting, I'm sure.
posted by clevershark at 3:57 PM on November 5, 2006

Konolia where does the Bible condemn homosexuality. I'll preemptively offer this essay by James Alison that Romans 1 has nothing to do with homosexuality.

“But the Bible says...”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, it discourages evil desires that lead to violence.
posted by Buck Eschaton at 3:57 PM on November 5, 2006 [2 favorites]

The only thing that's changed is that now he has to provide himself as a scapegoat.
Throwing fresh Christians to the Lions? Fresh Lions to the Christians? It really is a circus.

konolia, if your gaydar is fixed, take a look at the other staffers at his church and tell us what you think.

I keep hearing that it really was HIS church, and not just a church that he led....his pic was supposedly everywhere, and he founded it, and apparently he had his hand(?) in everything that went on there.
posted by amberglow at 4:02 PM on November 5, 2006

When it comes down to it who is the god of the Evangelicals? When they close their eyes do they see Jesus or the "Gay Man"? Did Haggard's church grow as result of Jesus or as a result of the "Gay Man" that he thought was inside of him?
posted by Buck Eschaton at 4:08 PM on November 5, 2006

if your gaydar is fixed, take a look at the other staffers at his church and tell us what you think.

I'm going to guess Lance Coles at least. According to a quick survey I conducted, 1/2 of all people named Lance are gay. My sample was Lance Bass and Lance Armstrong.
posted by boaz at 4:14 PM on November 5, 2006

I get the distinct impression that only leather guys wearing assless chaps trip konolia's "gaydar" and that she'd be mortified to find out that so-called "normal-looking" people she knows are gay. It's a bit like pot smokers -- perception points to penniless hippies living in an old VW van, but reality is that the vast majority of regular pot smokers are "normal-looking" people who wear buttoned-up shirts and suits and go to work in offices every day.

But then to recognize that you have to be willing to concede that your preconceptions could be wrong.
posted by clevershark at 4:18 PM on November 5, 2006

peeping_Thomist, I mentioned Jefferson, Mill, and Rawls in my assertion that liberalism goes hand-in-hand with modern society. Your defense? SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! You didn't name any thinkers, you didn't name any civilized countries where liberalism hasn't played an important role, you just retreated into your hallowed little Catholic cloister-of-one, replete with incense and your wife's "shapely ass."

If you're going to try and dominate a thread, please be an adult about it. Pleage engage. Please don't talk so much about your penis and your wife's orifices and your porn collection. AND THEN LECTURE US ABOUT SEXUAL MORALITY!

As for society agreeing with me? Yeah, they do. If you can't realize that you hold minority views regarding same-sex marriage, and that your minority is growing, then there's no amount of discourse that can do the simplest thing -- make you take a step outside and realize that the 1950's are over. And it ain't just America -- it's Western Europe and parts of South America, for now. Asia will be next, but it will take a while I admit.

So I was somewhat serious when I suggested you get a job working for Saudi Arabia -- they have many of the trappings and conveniences of modern life (if you have a lot of money), but none of the nasty civil rights or women's rights that typically go along with societal advancement. You might like it there.
posted by bardic at 4:19 PM on November 5, 2006

As befits the "Evangelical Vatican," there is an MCC (LGBT church) in Colorado Springs, too. Their statement about Pastor Ted says, in part:

This is a time for us to be people of grace and compassion. It is not a time for accusation, speculation, or celebration.

Wicked ol' lapsed former Catholic and former Dignitarian me, I'm picturing lots of interfaith dialogue....
posted by Robert Angelo at 4:23 PM on November 5, 2006

amberglow konolia, if your gaydar is fixed, take a look at the other staffers at his church and tell us what you think.

Sorry.. On a second look I have to agree a tiny bit, they do look a little funky, perhaps even a hint of terrifying..
posted by econous at 4:34 PM on November 5, 2006

And this tidbit was just added there by Konolia:

"Late back to this thread...perhaps some of you might feel it is mildly ironic that my son-in-law is African American and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial.

I have been active in racial reconciliation movements here locally and I resent the comparison to gay rights.

That is all."

So, it seems she is quite selective in interpreting biblical directives.

what biblical directives are you talking about, ericb?

"Don't lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator, where there can't be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondservant, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:9-11 WEB).

certainly not that one ... the so called "justifications" for racism that people "found" in the bible were made by really stretching things ... such as the belief that the "mark of cain" was black skin or other such willful misinterpretations ...

so your comment about biblical directives are off-base ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:37 PM on November 5, 2006

Konolia, I think we can all have a better understanding of you if you will answer one simple question:

Do you support laws that prevent gay couples from joining in civil union?

Please provide a simple yes or no. Don't waffle like you did in your previous response.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:42 PM on November 5, 2006

konolia writes: You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where a homosexual or lesbian act is described as good. NOT ONE.

Out of a 3,000 page book, you won't find much discussion of homosexuality, period (Moses' sons looking at his naked body -- I'll admit, that's a weird moment). And for every time there is one, there's at least three occasions where heterosexuality is presented as sinful and/or immoral.

Game, set, match.

As for your grandchild, congratulations. But ya know, instead of thinking of him as your "bi-racial" relative, why not just a new opportunity for love, joy, and excitement? To divide people up the way you do is incredibly un-Christ like. I wish you had some capacity for self-knowledge. And I hope your grandson doesn't suffer the bigotry, hate, and short-sightedness of an Evnagelical community that's too busy judging others to realize they need to start with themselves.
posted by bardic at 4:43 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

I mentioned Jefferson, Mill, and Rawls in my assertion that liberalism goes hand-in-hand with modern society.

I thought it was civilized societies rather than modern society? I'm guessing it's always the other guy that's the barbarian, the other cultrual practice that's barbaric. Obv really I guess.
posted by econous at 4:46 PM on November 5, 2006

bardic, I think you mean Noah's sons, not Moses's.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:01 PM on November 5, 2006

pyramid termite writes "certainly not that one ... the so called 'justifications' for racism that people 'found' in the bible were made by really stretching things ... such as the belief that the 'mark of cain' was black skin or other such willful misinterpretations ..."

Yes, and the so-called 'justifications' for homophobia that people have 'found' in the Bible...
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:06 PM on November 5, 2006

My God, I was right. I said "1200 by the end of the weekend," and here we are.

This is the thread that never ends!
It goes on and on my friends!

And I'd only like to say that Mark Driscoll's statement about pastors' wives above are so ridiculous that they pretty much ruin any good that can come out of what he wrote otherwise. And there's some good stuff in there. But no, someone thinks he's sitting at the bar with a bunch of likeminded guys instead of running his trap in front of six billion people.

Mark Driscoll is more than just a fool for Christ -- he's a damned fool. Pity him.
posted by dw at 5:27 PM on November 5, 2006

caddis, the MeTa is closing in on 400 comments.
posted by cgc373 at 5:55 PM on November 5, 2006

Pyramid Termite: "certainly not that one ... the so called "justifications" for racism that people "found" in the bible were made by really stretching things ... such as the belief that the "mark of cain" was black skin or other such willful misinterpretations ...

so your comment about biblical directives are off-base ..."

The point that several people are making, Pyramid, is that the same willful misinterpretations of scripture are being made when it comes to homosexuality.

Read Kyrademon's excellent post (about 20 posts up; sorry, I can't remember coding and computer is acting very slow) for one example.
posted by mijuta at 5:56 PM on November 5, 2006

Sounds like poo to mate. Do self immolation or hunger strikes count?

Totally different things, "mate," but interesting cases. First, very few people (often, in fact monks, or others who have worked hard to master and discipline their natural drives) ever pull those acts off (to make a little pun, since most everyone pulls off the other one). Very few hunger strikers actually starve themselves to death; and I'll bet dollars to a million donuts that the moment after the match is irreversibly struck the self-immolator regrets his/her decision profoundly. Since it can't be changed once taken, it is quite a different thing from hunger striking or refraining from self-gratification.

I don't say it can't be done. I say it is rarely ever done, and that the odds of someone managing it for 20 are slim to none.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:59 PM on November 5, 2006

how did i miss that metatalk thread, i guess i have been busy this weekend
posted by caddis at 6:01 PM on November 5, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy, mijuta ... yes, people willfully misinterpret the bible when it comes to homosexuality, also ... one of the limitations of the bible is that there are certain subjects that simply aren't considered much, because the societies in which they were written had no reason to consider them much ... i think one has to consider the spirit with which much of the new testament was written, which would be charity, love, compassion, forgiveness and self-questioning before judgment of others, to really determine what the bible "says" about things like gay marriage

unfortunately, many people believe in a god of anger instead of a god of love ... and some, like haggard, who see themselves as "sinners in the hands of an angry god", end up doing all they can do to act out that drama and ensure that the world condemns them along with the condemnation they feel in themselves ... while pointing the finger at those who are "doing wrong", even if the justification for that is hazy
posted by pyramid termite at 6:10 PM on November 5, 2006

Apropos of nothing, here's a bbc documentary about how the Roman Catholic church deliberately covered-up sex crimes within the church.

The current Pope was largely responsible. Such a moral man!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:24 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

pyramid termite writes "i think one has to consider the spirit with which much of the new testament was written, which would be charity, love, compassion, forgiveness and self-questioning before judgment of others, to really determine what the bible 'says' about things like gay marriage"

Which is the entire point we're trying to make to bigots like konolia and peeping_Thomist. (His name isn't quite correct... it seems to be more like hoping_for_a_peeping_Thomist)
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:25 PM on November 5, 2006

konolia: He judges us me here which is why we are I am exhorted to run to Him to find mercy and grace and deliverance from our my sinful natures. We I cannot and will not get rid of them on our my own...

Speak for yourself. Thanks.

The ONLY sin is lack of love. [for me, at least]
posted by exlotuseater at 6:48 PM on November 5, 2006

Well, fff, you know, the bible says pedophilia is a-okay! So what's the problem?
posted by Hildegarde at 6:50 PM on November 5, 2006

AT THIS POINT, This thread, at roughly 114,839 words, when formatted to fit on 8.5" x 11" paper (12 pt. Times New Roman) is ~344 pages.

Anyone got a good publisher? I feel the magic. It's got great tension and depth, drama, a wide cast of characters...

It's like 12 120 Angry Men. [how many users have participated in this particular thread anyway?]

I admit the arc needs some work though.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:01 PM on November 5, 2006

amberglow writes "konolia, if your gaydar is fixed, take a look at the other staffers at his church and tell us what you think."

Holy fuck. They all look like they're about to start singing show tunes.
posted by orthogonality at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2006

120 Angry Men.

And a few women. On both sides of the argument, no less!
posted by Hildegarde at 7:13 PM on November 5, 2006

"Ye can not serve God and mammon" (Matt. vi. 24) These are not men of God. They use religion to make themselves wealthy. The Christian values I was taught were love and charity, these guys preach hate and selfishness. Ughhh. That is why the world hates them and laughs at their adherents. Real Christians worry more about helping others than judging others. These turkeys are not really Christian, they are just the Devil's spawn.
posted by caddis at 7:25 PM on November 5, 2006

fourcheesemac so it is possible that he aint wanked for 20 years, but more probable that he is simply telling lies, because of course everyone does it. And suicide doesn't count as being an override of basic natural drives as they probably change their minds when it's a bit too late. Well, I reckon it's entirely possible he has not wanked for 20 years. Of course not wanking for 20 years is a bit mad. And the mad can do amazing things. Q.E.D! Thanks for your help guv.
posted by econous at 7:39 PM on November 5, 2006

Hildegarde, it certainly was not my intention to be sexist/ gender biased-- it was the first reference that came to mind. No offense meant.
posted by exlotuseater at 7:47 PM on November 5, 2006

What did Ted Haggard say when he was getting a massage from Mike Jones?

Christ, what an asshole!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
posted by mijuta at 7:53 PM on November 5, 2006

I don’t wish to derail this thread any more than it already has been, but I wanted to address a point that has been made both here and in the metatalk thread: that no one is being converted in these discussions; that they are essentially futile—seed-spilling, if you will.

When I first came to Metafilter I was a strict Catholic, who had been raised by fanatically strict Catholic parents. Some of my earliest memories are of being taken by my mother to anti-abortion rallies, visiting my father in jail after he had been arrested for protesting, not being allowed to buy gum from gumball machines sponsored by Planned Parenthood, and having discussions with my father about the various gay men he had counseled and how weighed on they were with guilt and shame. I believed then, as I do now, that the Catholic Church was a structure of unparallelled linguistic and semantic beauty—a philosophical wank of unequalled length and dexterity; a sharp-spired, sun-reaching hot-air castle. I was then, as I am not now, happy to live within its walls. I followed Church law to its letter, understood Church law to its letter, and believed Church law to its letter.

Places like Metafilter changed my mind. Metafilter changed my mind. We didn’t watch the news in my house, we watched Fox News. We didn’t listen to the radio, we listened to Rush Limbaugh. I had been entirely insulated from any type of rational discussion about the assumptions that lie at the foundation of such breathtaking semantic structures as the Catholic Church. Perhaps never before in history have people in my position had such wide and deep access to conversations good enough to change their minds. Thank you for that. And for that reason, I’ll be glad to see this conversation, or any others like it, go on as long as it has legs.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 7:53 PM on November 5, 2006 [25 favorites]

Hildegarde, this is about a brazilian posts late, but a hug back to you! Librarians are the best kind of people to hug.
posted by mijuta at 7:56 PM on November 5, 2006

Bravo for jonmc's tolerance. He's undoubtedly a mensch, despite some flare-ups we've had.

thank you for that, bardic. if you're ever in New York, you're more than welcome to join me, divine wino (who stood up for you to me back when you and i were brawling), and joe famous and the rest for a few beers.

I understand that the longing and urges for gay people are true longings and true urges....

I don't ever condone being mean to gay people. I believe they need to have jobs and places to live just like anyone else.

I'll take you at your word on this. But, you've got to see that supporting people like Haggard is causing gay people misery or at the very least enabling others to do so.

I draw the line at gay marriage because I believe by definition there cannot be such a thing

Well, nobody's asking fundy churches to do that. As an absolutist on freedom of religion, I'd fight it it they were forced to, perversely enough.

konolia, as a friendly favor to me, I urge you again, to read this book. I think you'd find it enlightening and quite frankly, if you came around, you'd be a good person to have on our side.
posted by jonmc at 7:59 PM on November 5, 2006

Wow, we are now fast closing on 1200 comments, many of them made in anger, and this thing is still not in MetaTalk. That has to be a MetaRecord.
posted by caddis at 6:26 PM EST on November 5

caddis, it's been meta'd TWICE.
posted by quonsar at 8:05 PM on November 5, 2006

PRB, thank you for your awesome post. I was thinking everything was pretty futile, too, but to be honest, this thread has really made me think a lot about faith, and specifically about how I can be a better person. If you read my comments back to back, it probably seems like all I have thought about is how Konolia, Peeping_Thom, etc. help perpetuate the condemnation of gays. But I've read every single comment in this thread, and so many people's views on faith--whether they are coming from a place of religion or from an atheistic viewpoint--have really made me think beyond my own vantage point. (Others' viewpoints, mainly Konolia's and PT's, have made me realize I've come very, very far from my largely rigid, anti-gay, fear-of-Hell Catholic upbringing.) This will likely sound very simplistic, but I can't think of any other way to state it: the people who posted that God/Jesus is love had the biggest effect on me. It served as a much-needed reminder.

/sappy post
posted by mijuta at 8:11 PM on November 5, 2006 [1 favorite]

Powerful Religious Baby: a beautiful comment, thank you for taking the time to make it.
posted by econous at 8:13 PM on November 5, 2006

People use the "if one soul is saved, then it would all be worth it" rhetorical device a lot, but I think your comment has made this thread worth it, Powerful Religious Baby.
posted by chimaera at 8:28 PM on November 5, 2006

And the mad can do amazing things.

Indeed. And suicide is, in Thomist's world, a sin. It is against "natural law." So the entire anaology is flawed. By comparison, it should be a sin not to do what comes (another pun!) naturally.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:10 PM on November 5, 2006

I have masturbated 4 times since this thread started.
posted by 2sheets at 9:11 PM on November 5, 2006

I have masturbated 4 times since this thread started.

And called for the death of evangelicals once.
posted by dw at 9:18 PM on November 5, 2006

I'm masturbating right now.
posted by bardic at 9:39 PM on November 5, 2006

Do you Christians have any evidence the bible is even finished yet? Maybe in a hundred years another chapter will be added. Maybe somewhere in the NEXT chapter will be clarification for the rest of the conflicting drivel you people seem to get all worked up over.

The entire thing seems to be very much a work in progress. Not quite a first draft effort. Certainly not the work of a Perfect Being. Ok, possibly an outline by a Perfect Being. But dictated to imbiciles, then ghosted by an illiterate and edited by idiots. I would have waited a while before basing a religion on the thing. But that's just me.
posted by tkchrist at 9:41 PM on November 5, 2006

Do you Christians have any evidence the bible is even finished yet?

Ask a Mormon.
posted by bardic at 9:55 PM on November 5, 2006

I was thinking everything was pretty futile, too, but to be honest, this thread has really made me think a lot about faith, and specifically about how I can be a better person.

Agreed, mijuta. econous and chimaera--thank you.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 10:54 PM on November 5, 2006

Powerful Religous Baby, your comment is the Comment of the Year in my book. Seriously.

One of the big reasons I love this place is that I have seen several times (a score? a couple score?) that people, within the span of a thread, change their minds (or "come to a new understanding" perhaps) and admit they were wrong.

Another big reason is that I learn so much from the brilliant, eloquent people here. Dammit, people, how am I ever going to finish reading all my browser tabs when threads like this give me several dozen more I have to read?

So many gems in this thread. Glad I took the time to read everything.
posted by beth at 3:44 AM on November 6, 2006

I note with awe and admiration that secularists, atheists and pantheists always write the best Jeremiads.
posted by Haruspex at 4:36 AM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

You know, it just occurred to me . . . I've been steadily comparing human behavior to the behavior of other primate species in this thread as if that mattered. Since the Xtians don't believe, they say, that we're all just another branch on the primate tree, it means nothing to them, I suppose, to point out the laws of nature from a scientific perspective. Talk about a total denial of "natural law." It's basically, indeed, a denial of the reality of nature as such.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:55 AM on November 6, 2006

God wanted Ted Haggard evangelical sex/drugs scandal revealed right before the election:

"Other speakers urged the congregation not to look for political conspiracies. If the timing of the disclosures affects the nation, or the election on Tuesday, then that is God’s will, the speakers said. Mr. Haggard was a prominent supporter of conservative causes, including a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

'God does things when he thinks they’re appropriate,' said Larry Stockstill, the pastor of the Bethany World Prayer Center in Louisiana, from which the New Life Church began in 1985 as an outreach mission.

'What’s going to happen in the nation?' Mr. Stockstill said. 'You know what — I don’t think that’s your concern or mine. He chose this incredibly important time for this sin to be revealed and I actually think it’s a good thing — I believe America needs a shaking, spiritually.'

posted by ericb at 7:06 AM on November 6, 2006

Powerful Religious Baby --excellent post--you should chime in more often. I think most of us have had our worlds expanded simply by participating here, even if it's not directly evident all the time.
posted by amberglow at 7:43 AM on November 6, 2006

cf. Paul Cain, a prominent "prophet" who once met with Saddam Hussein was exposed a couple of years ago for being an alcoholic and homosexual.
posted by mattbucher at 11:34 AM on November 6, 2006

If the timing of the disclosures affects the nation, or the election on Tuesday, then that is God’s will, the speakers said. Mr. Haggard was a prominent supporter of conservative causes, including a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Thank you, Jesus!
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:55 AM on November 6, 2006

I really liked eustacescrubb's comments in this thread.

Honestly, Konolia's reading of the bible does not bother me. For thousands of years (depending on the time and place, but mostly) people have been hostile to homosexual relationships, and that is only now changing in a significant way, and only then in pockets of places. We can't expect the standard-bearers of religion to be at the forefront of this, especially as their religious texts tell them explicitly that it is a sin against God.

What we can blame them for is spending millions of dollars on stuff like new churches, political issues, self-worship, etc. They have reduced to the bible to which sins can we use to divide people and get power, and which parts can we use as self-justification for our excesses.

You don't see evangelical churches feeding the poor, or heeding the main, central messages of the bible. It's all about power, control, divide-and-conquer, and completely arbitrary and phony use of the magic word "love".
posted by cell divide at 12:18 PM on November 6, 2006

I have a feeling that the domain names thread56002.net/com/org, or even just 56002.net/com/org are probably available right this minute. Just a thought.
posted by jokeefe at 12:57 PM on November 6, 2006

I have a feeling that the domain names thread56002.net/com/org, or even just 56002.net/com/org are probably available right this minute. Just a thought.

Just to clarify, that was meant in a spirt of whimsy, pretty much.
posted by jokeefe at 1:09 PM on November 6, 2006

Newsweek: An Evangelical Identity Crisis -- "Sex or social justice? The war between the religious right and believers who want to go broader."
posted by ericb at 2:00 PM on November 6, 2006

Sirius Satellite Radio transcript: Michelangelo Signorile interviews fallen-evangelical-leader Ted Haggard's male hooker.
posted by ericb at 2:02 PM on November 6, 2006

Denver Post: Escort says Haggard's apology "hollow."
posted by ericb at 2:07 PM on November 6, 2006

Meth and Man Ass (embedded music -- plays on page load).
posted by ericb at 2:10 PM on November 6, 2006

You don't see evangelical churches feeding the poor, or heeding the main, central messages of the bible. It's all about power, control, divide-and-conquer, and completely arbitrary and phony use of the magic word "love".

Maybe you don't see evangelical churches caring for the poor, but I see it all the time. I see churches running soup kitchens, getting prescription medicines to people, operating medical clinics, housing the homeless, visiting prisoners, on and on and on. Most of those activities don't make the newspaper, and a lot happen quietly and behind the scenes. Spend a week with almost any minister and you'll find out that a lot of time when the phone rings, it's someone in need who doesn't know where to turn, and so they call a church. The popular caricature of the power-hungry, money-mad pastor just doesn't match the reality of thousands of clergy in little churches across the world who are lower-middle class at best, will never be known outside of their little circle, and spend their days doing what they can to make a difference, often paying for it out of their own pockets.

Are there some prominent greedy power-hungry jerks? Of course. Have too many churches gotten caught up in trying to change the world through legislation rather than consistent, humble service? No doubt. But does that change the fact that most pastors are pastors because they want to make a difference, and most churches are consistently involved in charitable works? No way.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 2:19 PM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

Maybe you don't see evangelical churches caring for the poor, but I see it all the time.

You're missing the point. No one's saying that no evangelicals do actual good works. The focus is more on the face that, given the proportion of attention the Bible pays to homsexuality (and sex in general) to the attention it pays to the poor, one would expect a true follower of Christ to spend his/her time in a similar proportion. That means with all the ranting we hear from the Haggards and Dobsons about gay marriage, we shold be seeing the same effort, multiplied by the thousands, on caring for the poor, welcoming the immigrant, comforting prisoners, turning the other cheek, etc. In fact, the political agenda the evangelical community in general supports with their votes is the antithesis of the very things that the Bible spends a majority of its time on.
It'd be very like if I went around knokcing on people's doors at midnight, and trying to roll back civil rights leglislation, disenfranchise black voters, and return us to the days of slavery but claimed to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King, Jr. because one of his sermons is called "A Knock At Midnight." No sane person would see me as a follower of King's; and they'd automatically mistrust my opinions on his teachings.
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:58 PM on November 6, 2006

what eustace said.
posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on November 6, 2006

And let's not forget that "Evangelicals are Hypocritical Homophobes" is better for a headline than "Evangelical Church Feeds the Poor."
posted by The Deej at 3:18 PM on November 6, 2006

And let's not forget that "Evangelicals are Hypocritical Homophobes" is better for a headline than "Evangelical Church Feeds the Poor."
The religious organizations themselves are the ones trumpeting their hatred with press releases and blastfaxes every single day--not about feeding the poor, but always about sex and gays and abortion.
Family Research Council's press page (for just one example)

This is interesting: One of the aspects I find among those who "follow the exgay path" is how erotically they speak of Jesus. Jesus, in effect, becomes their new gay lover who holds them in His arms. They constantly write about how they no longer "need" gay sex because they are too busy "loving Jesus" in ways they usually describe that are more erotic that the most steamy novel you can buy at the cut-out bin at Wal-Mart. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:31 PM on November 6, 2006

eustacescrubb:

What churches do to help the poor, and the amount of time and money spent on it, far outweigh the attention they spent on homosexuality. I can't show you a study that says that, but I've been deeply involved in evangelical churches all my life (though I am not evangelical any longer) and I can tell you that in my experience, much more effort is spent on social justice than is recognized. It doesn't make the headlines. In fact a lot of us (involved Christians) are annoyed at all the press the politically motivated loonies get.

Now, if you narrow your focus to overt political rallies, it is true that homosexuality gets far more than it's share of attention. But what I am saying is that the political megachurches in bed with the GOP are a small percentage of protestantism that get undue attention because of their size and connections. Most Christians are in churches no one has ever heard of, and most of them spend a lot more time caring for the sick and feeding the poor than they do trying to stop same-sex marriage.

United Methodist bishops took a strong stand against the Iraq War. How much press did it get? Not much. More recently, Luthern leaders issued a statement about the failings of the federal budget to appropriately care for the poor. Did it make headlines? Not that I saw. Jim Wallis and Soujourners work constantly for social justice from an evangelical perspective, and they are barely a blip on the media radar. But one wacko, Fred Phelps, and a hateful god-damned congregation consisting mainly of his family travel across the country to protest at a gay person's funeral, and it's film at 11:00 on the major networks. Churches doing good things doesn't make for good ratings. Power-hungry pastors and hateful wackos do. Don't make the mistake of assume that the percentage of press reporting accurately reflects the realities of Christian activity. It doesn't.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:44 PM on November 6, 2006

beth and amberglow, thank you for your kind words.
posted by Powerful Religious Baby at 4:06 PM on November 6, 2006

Pater Aletheias is right.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:09 PM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

Let's not be naive here Pater Aletheias. If this were the 1950's, and we were talking about Sister Mary's soup kitchen in the rough part of town, I'd agree completely. But the whole frickin' point of these "mega-churches" of the Evangelical movement is that they aren't just nodes of kindness to others (I know they help the poor, do food drives, good stuff like that -- I've seen it in action and I've volunteered to help out at a few), but that they are more than just churches -- the larger ones have ATMs and food courts, just to name a couple of obvious examples. There are also networks -- social, economic, and most importantly, political, that don't just pop up at these places, but are actively encouraged.

Just read what Haggard or Dobson has to say about their movement. They are proud to be "innovators" in this regard -- no longer will Chrstians meekly profess their faith in private, they will actively seek to influence politics through elections, to harness their collective economic strength, and to not just create their own world at home, but change America, all of America, into a refelction of their normative desires. In their own words, it's "free-market theology." In other words, you can have your render unto God and your render unto Caesar, no problem at all. (Of course, there are huge problems, but people are only now starting to wake up to them.)

And they have a right to do this. But I have a right to call bullshit. Fine, if they open a soup kitchen, as a human being, I appreciate that. But let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees -- these people want to take away the rights of gays, women, and non-Evangelicals in general.
posted by bardic at 4:24 PM on November 6, 2006

*heh, and of course I forgot to include my most important point -- this movement isn't an isolated one at all. It's completely mainstream. And drawing attention to the hypocrisy and deceit of a Haggard is, IMO, absolutely critcal.
posted by bardic at 4:27 PM on November 6, 2006

Pater Aletheias:

I beg to differ. I grew up in and spent a significant portion of my adult life in evangelical churches. The disconnect between their politics and what the Bible teaches was the main reason I abandoned evenagelicalism. It's not just the media figures that sput the anti-gay stuff. Rank and file evangelicals do it too, just like rank and file evangelicals vote Republican and believe in a Jesus not unlinke the aforementioned Supply Side Jesus. To be sure, there are exceptions, and to be sure, younger evangelicals seem to be disenchanted with the current evangelical leadership and its values, but Dobson and Haggard and Colson and Robertson and Fallwell aren't popular for no reason.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:51 PM on November 6, 2006

The religious organizations themselves are the ones trumpeting their hatred with press releases and blastfaxes every single day--not about feeding the poor, but always about sex and gays and abortion.

A valid point, but those "religious organizations" are not necessarily "churches." They are political organizations.

I do not defend or excuse any person or organization for hatred toward any group of people, whether it's based on their sexual identity or their skin color. By the same token, it's not fair or right to judge all Christians as being like those "christians" who get all the press attention.

I have been involved in many churches and Christian-oriented organizations that help the homeless and the poor, and feed the hungry. Not once have they blastfaxed or written press releases about it.

Jesus said "Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly"

The book of James says: “This is true religion, pure and undefiled in the sight of God, to look after widows and orphans in their time of need.”

Despite the hypocrites in the news, and those who use Christianity for political gain or personal power, or an excuse to hate, there are still a vast, unseen number of Christians who follow the example and teachings of Christ.
posted by The Deej at 4:55 PM on November 6, 2006

A valid point, but those "religious organizations" are not necessarily "churches." They are political organizations.

Oh please. Where do you draw the line between a church and a politically active group funded by said church and run by said members of said church and sharing a political platform with said church?

And I appreicate the reference to James. There's a reason Christians from Paul to Luther and beyond really wanted to yank it from the canon.
posted by bardic at 5:04 PM on November 6, 2006

*and Jesus has obviously forsaken my spelling abilities this evening
posted by bardic at 5:05 PM on November 6, 2006

If this were the 1950's, and we were talking about Sister Mary's soup kitchen in the rough part of town, I'd agree completely.

How about the Salvation Army? They're evangelical. Or the Union Gospel Missions in the west. Also evangelical.

Or World Vision, which does relief and development in the Two-Thirds World? Or World Relief and their work with refugees? Both evangelical.

How about Jubilee 2000? Started by British evangelicals.

Honestly, "You don't see evangelical churches feeding the poor" is utter and complete bullshit. I see a ton of them doing it, and if they're not, they're passing money to someone in the city to do it.

But the whole frickin' point of these "mega-churches" of the Evangelical movement

OF the movement. They are NOT the movement. Average congregation size in this country is something like 150. For all the 5,000-10,000-30,000 member congregations in this country, a majority of all evangelicals DON'T go to megachurches. They're just rock-star preachers with convenient parking and simple bromides for people who want to be part of the Jesus chapter of the Rotary Club.

The movement is big, and there are plenty of people and things to criticize. But kindly put the broad brush down, people.

I almost feel like I should delineate who is in the movement and what it really looks like. It's not as monolithic as you think it is.
posted by dw at 5:09 PM on November 6, 2006

Don't make the mistake of assume that the percentage of press reporting accurately reflects the realities of Christian activity. It doesn't.

And this explains why so many of the Christian churches in the US are putting themselves on the line and marrying gay folks to push the law forward and demonstrate that they are in favour of equal rights.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:16 PM on November 6, 2006

Not what I said dw. Not what I said. The charitable works are obviously important. Using them to obfuscate the fact that millions and millions of dollars go to these people, and hence get funneled into their attempts to push through legislation is wrong though.

It was Haggard himself who touted the fact that he represented 30 million Christian Americans. So excuse me if I don't take him at his word on a few points.

And while this thread probably doesn't need yet another derail, I'm highly skeptical of any Christian charity organization that involves missionary work and/or abstinence education. Mother Theresa, bless her twisted little soul, did far more harm for Indians than good by blocking basic access to contraception. For centuries, missionary groups have not given help to the starving out of the goodness of their hearts, but through extortion methods meant to get as a high a conversion-count as possible.

Sure, we need to look at these things on a case-by-case basis. But in general, lots of Christian missioanry work has, at best, been ineffectual, and at worst, actually contributed to the larger problems.
posted by bardic at 5:17 PM on November 6, 2006

bardic:
No need for the "Oh please." I am not talking about ANY church that uses its money or members for political action. But maybe that's part of the problem: the fame (infamy) of the big name preachers and churches make it seem like EVERY church funds political action. Sad.

Too many people have turned the teachings of Jesus into something He would never recognize.
posted by The Deej at 5:21 PM on November 6, 2006

Pater Aletheias: "But one wacko, Fred Phelps, and a hateful god-damned congregation consisting mainly of his family travel across the country to protest at a gay person's funeral, and it's film at 11:00 on the major networks."

This isn't about Fred Phelps and I suspect you know that. He's a nut job who even the hard-core conservatives shun.

As Eustace wrote, this is about "Dobson and Haggard and Colson and Robertson and Fallwell," who have their own multi-media empires; who have followers in the tens of millions; who
have chosen to enter the political arena; who have crusaded to outlaw anything that does not conform to their narrow view of "family values."
posted by mijuta at 5:23 PM on November 6, 2006

(Btw, I guess this is the point where I should tout the fact that there are plenty of people out there who try to help the less fortunate not in the name of their dead icon, but because it's the right and humane thing to do regardless of who you are and how you do or don't worship. I know a cop who passes out hand-me-down clothing to homeless guys during the winter, I used to know a baker who drove around rough parts of DC at 4 in the morning handing out the day-old stuff, I know a social worker who makes a lot less than she could for her education level. Granted, she still gets paid, but my larger point is that Christians nor theists in general have a monopoly on charity.)
posted by bardic at 5:23 PM on November 6, 2006

Well, I'll cop to potentially being paranoid about he Dobson/Haggard wing of American Christianity. And I'm glad people are trying to prove me wrong, but I'll stick to my guns, at least for now. When people start demanding we take action in the name of their deity, I see planes crashing into buildings. Call me crazy.
posted by bardic at 5:28 PM on November 6, 2006

Jon Stewart's doing Haggard right now--with a gloryhole cam!
posted by amberglow at 8:06 PM on November 6, 2006

But kindly put the broad brush down, people.

I almost feel like I should delineate who is in the movement and what it really looks like. It's not as monolithic as you think it is.

We see by their words and actions what it looks like--if that doesn't match how you see it, change how your religion is presented.

We're the ones painted (with targets on our and our family's backs) by that brush--we know how broad and well-funded it is.
posted by amberglow at 8:10 PM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

We've changed how we are presented in the media, and our very normality (now that it's shown) is so powerful it enrages and terrifies millions. It's no longer just leathermen and drag queens shown in the media as representative of us--now it's your turn to change how you're presented, maybe?
posted by amberglow at 8:13 PM on November 6, 2006

...if that doesn't match how you see it, change how your religion is presented.

It's pretty tough when they refuse to let you try.
posted by booksandlibretti at 8:29 PM on November 6, 2006

The Evangel movement is represented by the actions and press releases of the most vocal of the movement.

If you expect people who are not in your clan to be differently-informed than they are, it is you who is responsible for becoming better communicators of your good deeds.

Let's hear the religious get media savvy about telling the nation that they just don't give a shit whether gays get "married" in a civil union process, ie. not of the church.

For starters, let's see if you can get the nation to start using "marriage" to refer to strictly hetereosexual, ordained, civil unions; and "civil union" for everything else.

'cause frankly, it doesn't matter a shit what it's called, so long as informed, consenting adults are granted the full legal rights of couplehood.

We need to get over this idiocy and start focusing on bigger social and world problems!

That is why real Christians are going to have to start being actively vocal in their support of the appropriate middle ground: no requirement for a religion to sanctify a marriage, and no laws that give those in ordained relationships greater advantage than those in strictly civil arrangements.

come to think of it, let's keep "marriage" used as broadly as it is. religionists, come up with your own term that excludes all us sinners! you'll be doing us all a big favour!
posted by five fresh fish at 8:41 PM on November 6, 2006

posted by scarabic at 9:33 PM on November 6, 2006

I was here.
posted by ColdChef at 9:40 PM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

I was here.
/Horton

The more they repeat Haggard's "part of my life that's repulsive and dark" the more i know that's it's not the part he thinks it is.
posted by amberglow at 9:51 PM on November 6, 2006 [1 favorite]

we'll never make it to 1500 at this rate
posted by keswick at 10:13 PM on November 6, 2006

Wow.
posted by Balisong at 10:56 PM on November 6, 2006

I saw a picture of that rentboy and I must say as a straight man that if that preacher did not nail him he is nuts, I mean that guy is hot. He is in his late 40's and still hustling, that is longevity in the game
posted by Iron Rat at 11:08 PM on November 6, 2006

It's times like these that I really, really wish we had never set the stage for Martin Luther.
posted by oddman at 11:38 PM on November 6, 2006

Pater Aletheias. sorry for painting with a broad brush. I know there are hundreds of churches who truly care for the least among us, and others which at the very least devote a nice chunk of their budget to doing good works.

But when I see the basic structure of the mega churches and by extension the smaller, closely-affiliated sattelite churches, and read their sermons, I see a church which seeks to focus on the individual, and "solving" his or her problems, shrewdly either ignoring or demonizing the weak, searching for "others" to either "save" or abhor. I see politics without wisdom, judgement without context, the love of a tribe and not the love of all God's creations. I think Luke said it best about this very issue:

"But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. " --Luke 6:32
posted by cell divide at 12:10 AM on November 7, 2006

Yup fff nailed it, ordinary christians are partially to blame for fundamentalist crap, simply by continuing to vote/talk like christianity has any bearing on morality. Same reason ordinary muslims are partially to blame for Saudi Arabia.

It wasn't like this durring the civil rights movement, a great many christians actually took a stand against injustice, used the retoric for their side, and didn't let the racist christians claim the religious identity.
posted by jeffburdges at 3:30 AM on November 7, 2006

konolia: You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where a homosexual or lesbian act is described as good. NOT ONE.

You will NOT FIND ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where Metafilter or AxeMe is described as good. NOT ONE.

Clearly, we'll all go to hell.
posted by uncle harold at 4:01 AM on November 7, 2006

I have a feeling that the domain names thread56002.net/com/org, or even just 56002.net/com/org are probably available right this minute. Just a thought.

Until 446 more comments are posted this thread isn't worthy!
posted by zarah at 4:14 AM on November 7, 2006

poor merle.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:55 AM on November 7, 2006

FWIW, the best-selling author / pastor of the largest megachurch of all doesn't really seem to care about gay marriage very strongly, and is criticized by harder-line Evangelicals.

Granted, the pastor's wife looks and acts like a diva-drag-queen, but that's another story...
posted by Robert Angelo at 5:18 AM on November 7, 2006

Interesting thing looking at how us, the UK, and Australia handled people being outed under a cloud-- The Secret's Out -- ...The comparisons are imperfect yet the contrast with the understanding noises made here and down under regarding Barker and Alan Jones seems noteworthy and not inexplicable given the hard line on the subject of the Christian Establishment and its chums in the Bush administration.
... Rather than urge Haggard to make peace within himself, fellow champions of Republican Christian values have congratulated him on his "warring".
... But one sure measure of any society's psychological wellbeing lies in its attitude to homosexuality, itself but one aspect of its outlook on gender and the sexes generally. Conservative America is in a cage of its own making about gays. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:57 AM on November 7, 2006

Robert, you guys need many more like Osteen (and it's telling that the press release itself was from a disapproving of him and also massive org--the Southern Baptists)
posted by amberglow at 9:00 AM on November 7, 2006

Robert, you guys need many more like Osteen...

Amberglow, I'm not sure which "you guys" you meant, but I'm not one of his guys. And he's not my type. The last minister I tricked with was a Unitarian! :-)

I haven't been to church in I don't know how many years, and when I did that Beliefnet quiz on "what religion am I" it decided I was either UU or New Age.
posted by Robert Angelo at 10:34 AM on November 7, 2006

For posterity!

Actually, I do have something to say. I have read (nearly) every comment in this thread - a feat that took three days - and what I came away with the most is: I love Metafilter. I am not quick enough, informed enough, or brave enough to stick up for myself (a lesbian atheist who strongly supports both freedom of and freedom from religion), but I don't need to. There are so many people here who can speak my truth, as well as different opinions from different vantage points. I enjoy learning here, even when it is painful.
posted by arcticwoman at 11:06 AM on November 7, 2006

One Colo. Springs' blogger's reaction to the New Life service on sunday:
Sitting in the 9:00am service at New Life Church yesterday I heard (imho) hideous praise music painfully wisp past my ears speaking of total reliance and submission to Jesus. "You're my strength", "you're my pillar", "without you I'd be lost", "I submit to you" these teachings aren't the teachings of Jesus. This is the making of a big cult of no personal responsibility. This is like heroin.
...
This is not Christianity. It is a mega-weird and spooky cult of the selfish.
posted by ibmcginty at 2:09 PM on November 7, 2006

One Colo. Springs' blogger's reaction to the New Life service on sunday:

Sitting in the 9:00am service at New Life Church yesterday I heard (imho) hideous praise music painfully wisp past my ears speaking of total reliance and submission to Jesus. "You're my strength", "you're my pillar", "without you I'd be lost", "I submit to you" these teachings aren't the teachings of Jesus. This is the making of a big cult of no personal responsibility. This is like heroin.
...
This is not Christianity. It is a mega-weird and spooky cult of the selfish.

posted by ibmcginty at 2:09 PM on November 7, 2006

it is weird and spooky--isn't Jesus supposed to be a role model more than just a "get out of Hell free" card?

arcticwoman, you should chime in too--we need to all be speaking up all the time.
posted by amberglow at 3:07 PM on November 7, 2006

You're my strength", "you're my pillar", "without you I'd be lost", "I submit to you" these teachings aren't the teachings of Jesus

Jesus said this: "I am the vine, you are the branches;he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit;for apart from Me you can do nothing."John 15:5

While we are at it, He said this:" I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6

And finally, He said this:"But when He, the Spirit of truth , comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; And He will disclose to you what is to come." John 16:13 (speaking of the Holy Spirit. The One who inspired the writing of Romans. The book that makes it quite plain what God thinks of homosexuality.)

Finally, I leave you with John 15:18-22 which I will NOT quote.

We Christians are nothing without our Lord. We sing the same (literally -the same) songs in our church. Heck, I even write some.

The tragedy of Ted Haggard is there was no one he felt he could share his secret struggles with in the beginning-isolation and pride build up until over time one is in a prison of one's own making, without a key. He must have chosen his ministry over seeking wholeness-I don't know for sure but it seems it must have been that way-but he wound up losing his ministry anyway. A tragedy of Greek proportions.

I know personally the importance of having others to be accountable to-there are times when I go to my husband or my best friend and share stuff that is personally embarrassing-but I do it because Christians are not an island, we are corporate, and we need each other to confess to and to pray for and be prayed for. It is the stray sheep who is devoured by the wolf....
posted by konolia at 4:54 PM on November 7, 2006

konolia -- now that your back I'm still interested in your response to the question I asked above:

konolia -- Well, my son-in-law is black and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial. Does that answer your question?

That doesn't answer the question. Let's try this -- how do you feel about those Christians who condemn interracial marriage and would consider your biracial grandson to be an abomination in the eyes of their Lord? And what happens if your grandson turns out to be "gay?" What then?

posted by ericb at 5:02 PM on November 7, 2006

If everybody has to sing the same song, what's the point of music?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:03 PM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia writes The tragedy of Ted Haggard is there was no one he felt he could share his secret struggles with in the beginning-isolation and pride build up until over time one is in a prison of one's own making, without a key.

He didn't get a parking ticket. He's a drug user and he's gay. I agree that he might need some help for the drugs in the form of counseling and rehab, but homosexuality is just something that people are. They've been around since before Jesus was born.

But I'm glad to know that you cut him so much slack. I mean, when Bill Clinton got a blow-job, that was just a "tragedy" where "there was no one he felt he could share his secret struggles with in the beginning -- isolation and pride build up over time."
posted by bardic at 5:14 PM on November 7, 2006

konolia -- Well, my son-in-law is black and my upcoming grandbaby will be biracial. Does that answer your question?

That doesn't answer the question. Let's try this -- how do you feel about those Christians who condemn interracial marriage and would consider your biracial grandson to be an abomination in the eyes of their Lord? And what happens if your grandson turns out to be "gay?" What then?

Christians who condemn interracial marriage do not have a Biblical leg to stand on. The Bible teaches that one should not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever, and although the Hebrews were not supposed to intermarry with the peoples around them this was simply because those people were idolators and the spouses would bring their false gods into the relationship. There are more than several examples of Jews marrying "outside " where God approved , such as Boaz marrying Ruth, but she was a follower of the Lord.

If my grandson were gay I would cry then I would pray for him. He'd still be welcome to come over for dinner.

As to me cutting Haggard slack, I simply prefer not to kick a man when he is down. He is accountable for his actions, and has lost his ministry over it. IIRC Clinton got to keep HIS job.
posted by konolia at 5:23 PM on November 7, 2006

CNN calling a Dem pickup in the House from Indiana. Nice.
posted by bardic at 5:24 PM on November 7, 2006

Wrong thread. Sorry.
posted by bardic at 5:28 PM on November 7, 2006

Presumptuous of me, but I'm going to point out: Peeping _Thomas (ah, perhaps the peeping refers not to sight, but to a little bitty voice, teency eency little itty bitty voice cheeping, quavering and wavering and weak, never to reconcile the Greek and Hebrew, the dirty mouthed angelboys to your sternly absurd hands-off absolutism) you never responded to Kyrademon.

And Konolia, there is no wolf, or The Tragedy of Ted Haggard is that he was the wolf, tearing peoples' lives apart for his own unslakable sake. But he tupped the wrong ewe, a damned ram, and when all's said and done, the truly courageous one here (how NT!) was the reviled sodomite, the (man) whore, the vilified outcast Jones.

Who spoke up against injustice, when he could have done otherwise, for his own profit, or out of fear.

Who took responsibility, and who failed to? Who was the shepherd and who the sheep?
posted by Haruspex at 5:30 PM on November 7, 2006

No, no, it's fine. It's God's will.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:31 PM on November 7, 2006

er, Gods'.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:32 PM on November 7, 2006

That's right the drug dealing rent boy, what a hero. What a stand up guy. I wanna shake his hand. Don't you?
posted by econous at 5:40 PM on November 7, 2006

Oh, but one last question for Konolia -- Why can't you just come out and say that Haggard is going to Hell? You've already claimed that all us mefites are, including, most likely, you and the rest of your family. And you don't even know 99% of us IRL. However, you do know that Haggard is guilty of 1) lying to his congregation, 2) homosexual acts, 3) drug use, 4) hypocrisy.

I've done some bad things in my life, but I've never headed up and then actively lied to a group of over 30 million people, and made over 600K$/year doing it.

You've shown no sympathy for compete strangers whom you know nothing about. But when faced with a deceitful liar who you know did all these bad things, we're supposed to show more sympathy? (His family, of course, is a different matter, but he sounds like such a twisted, vile person that they'd probably be better off getting away from him.)

We've covered this ground before, I realize, and it's unfair for me to single you out as a representative Evangelical, but what gets me is that Jesus spends a lot of his time demonstrating that a person, regardless of race, creed, or gender (the good Samaritan being the best example), can be a worthy person in God's eyes. It was the deceivers and hypocrites (to wit, the Pharisees) who were going to get it the worst, according to JC.

If Jesus was around today, I can assure you that it's the Haggards and Dobsons he'd being going after, not teenagers struggling, privately and painfully, with their sexual identity, or people having "bi-racial" babies. So I guess my biggest problem with Evangelicals (although I have plenty to choose from -- hypocrisy when it comes to morality, irrationality, a willingness to believe, always, what their wordly leaders tell them) is one of proportion. Jesus himself never condemns homosexuality -- he condemns frauds, phonies, hypocrites, liars, deceivers, and the wealthy. Sexual immorality? Arguably about 3% of what he spends his time on. So if you guys would spend 3% of your religious time on gay marriage, and the other 97% on important things, I'd start to take some of you seriously.
posted by bardic at 5:43 PM on November 7, 2006

... the drug dealing rent boy, what a hero.

I know — isn't it awesome? It's like a parable.
posted by Haruspex at 5:46 PM on November 7, 2006

Christians who condemn interracial marriage do not have a Biblical leg to stand on.

Says you. I say, along with Walter Wink, that Christians who condemn homosexuality don't have a Biblical leg to stand on. You'd probably claim he's misreading or misinterpreting the Bible. And I'm going to guess that those Christians who are anti-miscegenation would equally claim you are misreading/misinterpreting the Bible. So what then? You mentioned above how, from your point of view, telling gays they're sinners is an act of mercy since you're saving them from hell; well, from my point of view, you're being a bigot, and no amount of hemenutic gymnastics is going to change the fact that you hold a bigoted position w/r/t homosexuality.

It's not just you; my folks think like you do, and I've been working on them for years. (I sense that my stepmom might be coming around one of these days.)
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:55 PM on November 7, 2006

hermenutic. hermenutic. hermenutic.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:57 PM on November 7, 2006

Oh, but one last question for Konolia -- Why can't you just come out and say that Haggard is going to Hell? You've already claimed that all us mefites are, including, most likely, you and the rest of your family. And you don't even know 99% of us IRL. However, you do know that Haggard is guilty of 1) lying to his congregation, 2) homosexual acts, 3) drug use, 4) hypocrisy

I don't at this point think Haggard is going to hell. If he is born again (and I still think he is) he is justified (a legal term) and reckoned AS righteous because of Jesus's dying on the cross. Now, Haggart has some work to do regarding sanctification...hopefully now that CONFESSION has taken place-and I assume REPENTANCE- he has forgiveness (one has to have real repentance, not just regret, but I cannot see into his heart to judge that.) If Haggard goes to hell, assuming the above is true then NO ONE gets to heaven because EVERYONE sins. Some sins are bigger and garner more attention, but just cutting a little old lady off in traffic will get you just as hellbound as a meth-fueled gay orgy. Poop is poop, no matter what size the pile.

(Of course it is possible that Ted is an apostate, but so far he isn't acting like one-we'll see how things go in a month or so.)

As to metafilter, me, my family, and whoever-we either die in our sins and go to hell because thats what we deserve-ALL OF US-or we run to Jesus, repent of our sins and believe the gospel, which is the good news that He paid the penalty of our sins so we do not have to.

But, you say, I know a really nice atheist who serves the poor and loves people, and is nice to his mother...well, nice people go to hell every day. Because no one is perfect. And to have eternal life with God, and to avoid Hell, one must be perfect. God could let every last one of us rot in hell and be totally justified and just in doing so. His scale of what is good is so much greater than ours.....He had compassion on us, but sin is so bad it took His own sinless Son to pay for it.

Think on THAT.
posted by konolia at 6:05 PM on November 7, 2006

just cutting a little old lady off in traffic will get you just as hellbound as a meth-fueled gay orgy

Yeah, I agree here, both of these things are as likely to get you into Hell. (Of course, I don't think either of these things get you into Hell.)
posted by caddis at 6:17 PM on November 7, 2006

Wow. So although I'm a demonstrably more moral person than Haggard, he's got a better shot at heaven.

To paraphrase Epicurus, your religion is really stupid. Sorry, it's that clear to me.

Poop is poop, no matter what size the pile.

True, but I feel bad when mine misses the toilet. You actually admire Haggard for taking a mop and smearing it all over the faces of you and your fellow Evangelicals. Sad.

Because no one is perfect.

No, but some of us suck less than others. You'll have to take my word for it, but I don't make millions lying and deceiving, I'm not an adulterer, I don't do drugs (well, alchohol, but that's legal and Jesus drank plenty of wine), and I've never paid money for sex. Yet, I'm a worse person than Haggard, according to you.

Again, WWJD? I have a feeling he'd have some strong words for me, but he probably wouldn't bother with a person as sick an immoral and hypocritical as Haggard. There'd be no point -- not only is he caught up in so much denial, but he has rabid, ennabling fan-base that thinks all Jesus was about was a get-out-of-trouble free card. Seriously, that's all he is to you people -- a name you can invoke to make up for any trouble you cause, to yourself or others. As an atheist, at least I have more respect for his legacy and words than you do.

Seriously, read your Christian Testament again, especially Jesus' words. You have a woeful lack of reading comprehension when it comes to this book.

Think on THAT.

Hehe. I hope this thread never ends.
posted by bardic at 6:18 PM on November 7, 2006

I got my bag of bones back from the cleaners in Haiti this morning. With the Mars transit I thought the timing was excellent for me to cast a little something on all the contributors to the thread. Anyway it went very all, it's a good time of year for lots of energy, especially here with so much power condensed in all the writing. I promise nothing too bad, not really anyway. You'll notice it, (won't be able to miss it) in about 15 to 20 hours.
posted by econous at 6:20 PM on November 7, 2006

But, you say, I know a really nice atheist who serves the poor and loves people, and is nice to his mother...well, nice people go to hell every day

Speaking of not having a Biblical leg to stand on, Jesus said the exact opposite. See above reference to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25.

funny how konolia doesn't seem to ever want to respond to my posts...
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:28 PM on November 7, 2006

... the drug dealing rent boy, what a hero.

I know — isn't it awesome? It's like a parable.

It really and truly is---a new Bible Story for Adults, a la Morrow.

econous, knock yourself out--but you do realize we're a mix of positions on this?
posted by amberglow at 6:29 PM on November 7, 2006

Konolia: Think on THAT.

Ah, but I refute it thus.
posted by Haruspex at 6:47 PM on November 7, 2006

No, but some of us suck less than others. You'll have to take my word for it, but I don't make millions lying and deceiving, I'm not an adulterer, I don't do drugs (well, alchohol, but that's legal and Jesus drank plenty of wine), and I've never paid money for sex. Yet, I'm a worse person than Haggard, according to you.

Ever read the parable of the Pharisee and the publican?

YOu might find it interesting.
posted by konolia at 6:51 PM on November 7, 2006

Here is my reply to kyrademon's thoughtful comments, together with brief responses to two other contributors to the thread.

"Sin", as a concept and a word, is likely to do nothing but anger those on the other side of the argument from you without communicating any information

I agree. While I have sometimes used the word "sin" in this thread, I am not primarily thinking in terms of God having prohibited same-sex activity, though of course God has prohibited it. The wrongness of same-sex activity follows not from its being prohibited, but rather from what we can know about the kinds of things human beings are (namely, beings with a special kind of dignity that cannot be fully accounted for by our material constitution), and about the character of the relationship between sex and babies (namely, that it is non-accidental).

you have, to do you credit, attempted to explain (for those who were still paying any attention to you at that point) WHY you believed homosexuality to be a moral evil. The problem here is that your arguments simply make no sense to anyone who is not already Christian

The phrase "moral evil" is not one I normally use, though sometimes I find myself reluctantly using it rather than derailing every conversation I am in to explain why I do not use it.

When I briefly presented my reasoning against same-sex activity (it is incorrect to say that I believe being homosexual is wrong, since most homosexuals do not in any meaningful sense choose to be homosexuals), I did not rely upon Christian premises.

For example, one of your arguments seems to be: "Heterosexual relationship that take place within the bounds of marriage are the highest ideal for relationships because they mimic that of Christ with the Church.

That should hardly sway non-Christians. Also, I would use the word "image" rather than "mimic".

"Heterosexual intercourse is morally superior because it either is or closely mimics the kind of intercourse used for human reproduction.

The phrase "morally superior" has no cognitive content, so that's not a claim I would ever make. Allow me to rephrase the claim you are attributing to me: I claim that the only reasonable exercise of our sexual powers occurs when a man and woman who by marrying have capacitated themselves to receive the gift of new human life perform the marital act in such a way as to remain open to receiving the gift of new human life.

This [...] makes no sense without certain assumptions which are entirely based in the axioms of your religions

I disagree. The premises of sound arguments against same-sex activity need not depend on religious assumptions.

A) The purpose of intercourse is to reproduce

I prefer the word "procreate" rather than "reproduce," since there is nothing in the natural physical constitution of a man and a woman that makes them able to "reproduce" a new individual with dignity. This is not a religious point, but rather a philosophical one. Many people completely indifferent to revealed religion, people such as Plato and Aristotle and Kant, acknowledge that, in Aristotle's words, "nous comes from outside."

Human beings should, and in most of us do, inspire a special kind of awe. That awe should lead us to take very seriously the human act through which we capacitate ourselves to receive new human life. Scoffing, derisive remarks along the lines that sex is about "getting your rocks off" have about them an air of decadence, despair, and nihilism.

What is the value of a human life? Many non-religious thinkers agree with Christians that the value of a single human life transcends the value of the entire material world. As Kant put this point, rational beings have dignity, whereas everything in nature has a price. Is it not amazing, should it not inspire on our part a deep awe and humility, that we can perform an act that capacitates us to receive the infinitely valuable gift of new human life? Nous comes from outside, and only a fool scoffs at that reality.

B) Something which mimics an ideal action closely is closer to the idea than something which does not

A couple who perform the marital act do not "mimic" anything. They perform that distinctive kind of act that tends to provide the material basis for the breaking into the material order of nous, that is, the act that constitutes our contribution to the procreation of new human life. The word "tends" in this context is not a claim about statistical probabilities but rather about causal powers. (I'll say something more about that in response to fourcheesemac, below.) The fact that a causal power is not fully brought into activity in a particular action does not show that the there is no such causal power.

A couple who perform the marital act during the intertile time of the woman's cycle, or after the woman has passed through menopause, nonetheless perform the same kind of action as a couple who perform the marital act and subsequently receive the gift of new human life.

In contrast, someone who masturbates or has unnatural intercourse with a member of either sex does not perform the same kind of act as a couple who perform the marital act. Masturbation and unnatural intercourse with a member of either sex do not tend to provide the material basis for the breaking into the material order of nous. This is true not as a matter of statistics (as a matter of statistics, masturbation or unnatural intercourse "result in" or have as an "outcome" new human life more frequently than does the marital act when performed by couples in which the woman has passed menopause), but because these kinds of actions are only accidentally related to procreation whereas the marital act is non-accidentally related to procreation. This point can be acknowledged by anyone who is able to recognize that certain kinds of acts can be non-accidental causes of certain kinds of effects. I believe this includes most people who have not already embraced manifectly absurd theories about causality and about the causal structure of human action.

To many nonchristians, reproduction is merely one of many possible results of intercourse (the two are, as you point out, nonarbitrarily connected, but as many have replied, they are not identical, nor does one always follow from the other), and

This talk of "possible results of" is dangerously misleading. Teeing off on a par three hardly ever "results" in a hole-in-one, yet it would be silly to say a hole-in-one is not the goal of teeing off on a par-three.

In any case, we need to distinguish between (1) the kind of action a person intentionally performs, (2) the non-accidental end of that kind of action, and (3) the motivation a person has in performing that kind of action. As my much-maligned remark about my wife's shapely ass was meant to convey, one's motivation for performing the marital act can be, and typically is, something quite other than a desire to procreate, yet the kind of action one thus intentionally performs, the marital act, has a non-accidental directedness toward the end of procreation. This directedness is not called into question by your talk of "possible results".

attributing a "purpose" to a biological action is entirely arbitrary.

It is nothing of the sort.

But I do not need to refute you on this point in order to rebut your larger claims. All I need to show is that this is not a religious assumption, which is obvious upon a moment's reflection, since any number of thinkers who have lacked any belief whatsoever in revealed religion have accepted the doctrine that you superciliously reject as "entirely arbitrary".

This is not to say that actions do not have purposes; it reflects the belief that actions can have many purposes, and there is no acknowledgement of an "ideal purpose" because there is no acknowledgement of an authority imposing such a thing.

This is not a point about "authority". I believe you are confusing the motivations with intentions. Because I see my wife's shapely ass, I am motivated to intend an act that has a particular causal structure, and the act that I intend has a non-accidental directedness that is distinct from my motivation.

3) Because of these, and similar issues, your arguments MAKE NO SENSE to anyone who does not ALREADY BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.

This has not been my experience. I have repeatedly over the years had people tell me that they have come to change their minds about important matters such as this as a result of my comments to various public forums. I believe this is because the points I make connect with something implicit in how many if not most people pre-philosophically experience the world.

I am a complete and utter relativist about rationality, so I do not claim that every person should be able to immediately find plausible all the claims I am making. For example, if you are a nihilist, as it is clear many of the people who post to mefi are, you already have much more serious issues to resolve before you worry about whether same-sex activity is OK.

In short, I reject your claim that my arguments "MAKE NO SENSE to anyone who does not ALREADY BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE." (Why the caps?) Just because my arguments make no sense to some people who do not already believe some things I believe, it does not follow that no one who does not already believe "what I believe" (does that mean everything I believe?) can understand my arguments.

you do not believe that moral wrong derives from substantive harm, but from the word of god.

I am not interested in talking about "moral wrong," as that phrase is almost invariably an empty, hollow, shrill mask for arbitrary preferences.

I believe God does in fact have legitimate authority to oblige us not to engage in same-sex activity, and that God has so obliged us, but I do not expect most people in this forum to accept either claim. Hence I have not attempted to argue for either claim. (I admit to using the Christ/Church image to illustrate a point, but that was not intended as an argument for anything.)

one of the reasons I think people are continuing to try to argue with you is that you have shown some belief that substantive harm = moral wrong

If you mean that we have good reason to avoid actions that harm ourselves or others, other things being equal, I certainly agree. Other things, however, are rarely equal.

(By the way, you seem to be using the word "substantive" as a synonym for "serious" or "significant". In contemporary ethical debates, "substantive" has a special meaning that I do not think you intended. Basically, minimally rational people can disagree about what counts as harms and benefits, and their account of the nature of harms and benefits is tied to a "substantive" conception of human well-being.)

I think your beliefs DO contribute to homophobia. [...] I genuinely think that your attitude, and the attitude of those like you, forms the basis of the homophobia that expresses itself as violence.

I respectfully disagree. Keep in mind that I do think these matters should not be unduly emphasized. I do not support those who take great pains to publicize their opposition to same-sex activity, and who seek to rally mass opinion against homosexuals on the basis of absurd beliefs such as that homosexual orientation is a choice or that it can be "repaired". On the other hand, the gay political agenda is a real force in the world, and it is aimed at achieving goals that are deeply inimical to human well-being (on any substantive conception of human well-being that I am prepared to accept as the basis for our shared public life).

So believe homosexual acts are sins or don't, but please don't try to divorce your believe from the violence being enacted against homosexuals worldwide.

There are many contexts in which it is inappropriate to discuss the status of same-sex activity, for fear of fomenting homophobia. (Having lost a very close family member to homophobia, I am quite aware of that sad fact.) A public message board in which decent but theologically unsophisticated people are viciously excoriated for believing, correctly, that God has forbidden same-sex activity is not one of those contexts. I have never said anything about same-sex activity, in any virtual or real-life forum, that was not a direct response to arrant, dangerous nonsense about the topic.

Thanks again for your thoughtful remarks.

Here are my responses to two other contributors to this thread:

(1) bardic wants to talk about specific names. Let's do that.

Mill embeds a contradiction at the heart of his ethical theory (the "qualitative distinction" between higher and lower pleasures). To the extent that his theory is consistent, it is utterly inhumane, and to the extent that it is humane (that is, acknowledges the manifest reality of incommensurable pleasures), it is utterly inconsistent. Ethicists today fall into two camps: anti-utilitarians and inhumane utilitarians. Think I'm kidding? Look into the literature on this stuff! You think I'm too eager to sacrifice "the other" to preserve the consistency of a theory? Try reading contemporary utilitarians! Mill was a nice man with an incoherent theory that literally no one who knows the current state of play now defends. Everyone now is either an anti-utilitarian or an inhumane-but-consistent utilitarian.

Rawls? Yes, let's talk about Rawls. Rawls got his ass kicked so badly 25 years ago by people like Sandel and MacIntyre that he had to slink away and completely rework his theory into a shadow of its former self. What was initially presented to the waiting world of liberals looking for something to celebrate as a (finally!) successful neo-Kantian "theory of justice" that could be accepted by all rational beings insofar as they were minimally rational was reduced over time, in response to brutally effective external and internal critique, to an in-house fairy tale about how "our" liberal conception of substantive rationality can vindicate--but only for "us", of course--"political liberalism". (In other words, Rawls became nothing more than a communitarian who arbitrarily prefers liberal communities over non-liberal ones--big surprise!--but who does not even come close to addressing the problem of how to show the rational superiority of liberal communities over their rivals--Rawlsian liberalism degenerates into crude tribalism!) To this steaming turd he conjoined the vain hope for "overlapping consensus". If you find such sleight-of-hand impressive, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Please note that bardic's claim that liberalism is the defining feature of "civilized society" is patently offensive. He or she should apologize for it. Not even Rawls (the later, chastened Rawls, I mean) would agree with bardic's absurd equation of civilized society and liberalism. bardic silently shifted, I note, to the claim that it is "modern" societies, rather than civilized ones, that are essentially liberal, leaving unanswered--unasked, really--the question of what modernity is and why modernity is preferable to all available alternatives, such as the various possible forms of postmodernity and premodernity. Nope, bardic is too busy leading cheers for his team to notice that there are serious, that is, rationally defensible, rivals to liberalism.

Oh, and Jefferson? He owned slaves, so I never have to listen to him. :)

(2) fourcheesemac still doesn't believe that I haven't masturbated in almost 20 years. Perhaps he doesn't realize that Christians typically regard looking at pornography as more seriously wrong than masturbating. Why would I admit to something more serious but lie about something less serious? Answer: I wouldn't.

fourcheesemac makes a very good and not adequately appreciated point about the role of "nature" in all this. Evangelicals, and Protestants more generally, have serious problems appreciating the power of nature. They are the inheritors of virulent strains of nominalism and occasionalism that have deprived them of the ability to make sense of nature as having genuine causal powers. Since they think "nature" is nothing other than God in His divine sovereignty arbitrarily producing what we call "effects" upon the occasion of His having previously arbitrarily produced what we call "causes," they cannot understand how it could come to pass that a Christian could, as the result of a physical or psychological disorder, be sexually oriented toward inappropriate objects. The only categories available to them for thinking about the reality of disordered sexual desire are sin and grace, and hence each time Pastor Ted felt attracted to same-sex activity, he must have wondered why God was arbitrarily choosing to test him in this way. The Catholic answer to that question is that there is such a thing as nature, including human nature, and that nature has real causal powers, and you have to play the game of life with the hand you are dealt. As a result of lacking this understanding, Protestants are much more likely to go in for nonsense like "reparative therapy" than are Catholics.

The question of causal powers in nature is hotly contested in the philosophy of science. Smart people disagree about it, and there are people whose opinions I respect on both sides of the debate, but I believe the defenders of causal powers have the upper hand over the heirs of Hume. One of the main reasons for believing this is that anti-realism about causal powers plays absolutely zero role in the actual practice of science. Most Protestants are victims of bad philosophy as much as of bad theology.

Yes, fourcheesemac, I agree that evangelicals don't take seriously enough the fact that we are primates. But it doesn't follow from the fact that I am a primate that it therefore is reasonable or appropriate for me to masturbate, given what little I have been able to comprehend of the beauty and majesty of the marital act. I am in awe when I consider that the marital act allows us to participate in the generation of beings who have an absolute, infinite dignity that transcends the value of every merely material reality, not to mention when I consider the fact that that the marital act itself is the most intimate union of two such beings possible in this life. I believe this awe, and the responsible disciplining of our sexual passions that follows from it, is compatible with fully acknowledging the truths about our origins to which you rightly point.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:52 PM on November 7, 2006

Ah, peeping_Thomist. Your tune hasn't changed at all, just the subject matter in which you play it. I see you've honed your rhetoric some, making it slightly more palatable, but it's not working, is it?

Truly a marvel, and that's not a compliment.

I said in another huge thread (re: birth control) long ago that you were a towering-ego narcissist, and I haven't seen a single thing in either that or this thread that says otherwise. I'm glad I missed out on this massive postfest and that so many others have pointed out your puzzling oddness.

You must feel great getting all this attention! Enjoy it! :)
posted by zoogleplex at 6:54 PM on November 7, 2006

Uh, that rent boy (rent Daddy?) didn't deal the drugs. He connected Haggard with a dealer.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:56 PM on November 7, 2006

Konolia, if this thread proves anything it's that I and many other non-Evangelicals have a much more thorough grasp of the Bible than you do. Sorry, but your scriptural ignorance comes out every time you type.

But I have to wade through peeping_Thomist's Jeremiad right now and see if he's still talking about his wife and his masturbation habits.
posted by bardic at 7:00 PM on November 7, 2006

It seems like you can either emphasize the Gospel of John stuff that konolia stresses, or the synoptic Gospels that eustacescrubb stresses. Both sides persist in their beliefs lo these millennia later because both are plausible. There's no way to resolve this debate, is there?

It seems like the discussion mostly consists of the two sides quoting their preferred quotes, without explaining why the other side's passages don't carry the argument.

From an outsider's point of view, I'd be inclined, as a Christian, to shrug my shoulders, say God knows and we don't.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:01 PM on November 7, 2006

Actually, I'm just gonna scan it to see if my name comes up. That's way too long to hear a fundie Catholic dismiss the rest of the civilized, modern (and yes, liberal) world.
posted by bardic at 7:02 PM on November 7, 2006

Konolia, if this thread proves anything it's that I and many other non-Evangelicals have a much more thorough grasp of the Bible than you do. Sorry, but your scriptural ignorance comes out every time you type.

Bardic, if that were actually a true statement you'd be a born again Christian. *grin*
posted by konolia at 7:05 PM on November 7, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes Ethicists today fall into two camps: anti-utilitarians and inhumane utilitarians.

Sorry, but you don't seem to have read much contemporary philosophy. Not surprising.

Rawls got his ass kicked so badly 25 years ago by people like Sandel and MacIntyre

And yet, grad-level political science classes still read Rawls, even within conservative departments, usually at least one of his books. Sandel and MacIntyre? Maybe an article or two. Wrong once again.

Please note that bardic's claim that liberalism is the defining feature of "civilized society" is patently offensive.

Well, you should take it up with the other people in this thread who agreed with me completely.

And Jefferson, indeed, owned slaves. So I guess all Catholics must be pedophiles, no? Token, meet type.

You're a joke. It takes you, what, 3,000 words to prove that you haven't read many books and don't really know what you're talking about, and yet you'll try to bowl people over with your verbiage? In a thread that's gone over 1300 comments, not a very good strategy.

As for my equating "modern" and "civilized," I could get all Hobbesian and admit that there's a bit of a difference, but in general I was positing them both as adjectival signifiers against everything you stand for -- theocratic, uncivil, barbaric, and unjust societies based on infallible words from on high. Like I said, Saudi Arabia could use you. America can't. You have a right to live in peace here, of course, but I have the right that you're the intellectual and theological equivalent of a troglodyte. But thanks for playing.
posted by bardic at 7:12 PM on November 7, 2006

No Konolia, I'm an atheist who has a lot of respect for the teachings of Jesus. Unlike you, I don't see him as a get-out-of-trouble card. I see him as a moral teacher worthy of respect (as do Muslims and a lot of Jews).

Like I said, it's funny that I have more respect for him and his teachings than you do.
posted by bardic at 7:14 PM on November 7, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: Nope, bardic is too busy leading cheers for his team to notice that there are serious, that is, rationally defensible, rivals to liberalism.

Wow, didn't respond to this. Just, wow. So please enlighten us -- what are the "pre-modern or postmodern" alternatives to liberalism? Seriously -- direct question. Please answer it.
posted by bardic at 7:20 PM on November 7, 2006

And by the way, my "team" consists of America, Canada, Mexico, Europe, much of Asia and South America, and thankfully, a growing portion of Africa.
posted by bardic at 7:22 PM on November 7, 2006

Pre-Godwin, it's apparent that the argument's well and truly futile when one side resorts to calling the other a 'nilhist.'

That's pathetic, freshman-level rhetoric, p_t.
posted by Haruspex at 7:27 PM on November 7, 2006

I see him as a moral teacher worthy of respect (as do Muslims and a lot of Jews).

Like I said, it's funny that I have more respect for him and his teachings than you do

Really? Then what do you do about His claim about who He is?

You have gravely misunderstood Him. If he were merely a teacher he'd be a lying crackpot worthy of no one's respect.

And while it is a bit crass to refer to Him as a get-out-of-trouble card, in a way of speaking that is exactly what He is, and exactly what each of us desperately need. If He were only a teacher, we would be without hope in the world. If one thinks that all He needs to be is a teacher, one has a very proud heart indeed. And God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

I am humble enough to confess I need a Saviour.

Are you?
posted by konolia at 7:40 PM on November 7, 2006

Peeping_Thom: "the gay political agenda is a real force in the world, and it is aimed at achieving goals that are deeply inimical to human well-being (on any substantive conception of human well-being that I am prepared to accept as the basis for our shared public life)."

Oh, you mean the goals of equal rights? I posted it earlier but I'll post it here for you again. As a gay person in this country, you can:

* be fired for your sexual identity
* be evicted for your sexual identity
* be prosecuted for engaging in same-sex activity
* be denied the right to marry your partner
* be denied the right to adopt
* be denied medical visitation rights if your partner is in the hospital
* be denied the right to your partner's inheritance if your partner passes away
* be denied the right to attend your partner's own funeral

Could you explain to me how these rights are deeply inimical to human well-being? Because they certainly aren't inimical to my human well-being.

This is all the gay political agenda is about. We don't want you to be forced to marry us in your churches. You can go on believing we're damned to hell for all eternity, just please keep your beliefs out of my life and the lives of my friends and family, ok?

Also, I find it incredibly sad that Konolia cannot see beyond her own historical context--as staed numerous times in this thread, mere decades ago the Bible was used to condemn inter-racial marriage, and decades before that the Bible was used to support slavery. And here she is today, so proud of her interracial grandson. If it weren't for people like me and others who believe in equal rights for everyone--people who fought against religious hyopcrisy and bigotry--she wouldn't even have the opportunity to bring her grandson through her church's door.

Think on THAT, Konolia.
posted by mijuta at 7:41 PM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

konolia: Christians who condemn interracial marriage do not have a Biblical leg to stand on.

Ah -- but there are some Christians who differ from you and believe that interracial marriage is wrong and sinful, as per their interpretation of Biblical text. What do you say to those Christians who deem your daughter's marriage (and her son's biraciality) to be wrong and impure?
posted by ericb at 7:42 PM on November 7, 2006

"There are a significant number of Christians (particularly in America) who would claim that such ‘interracial’ marriages violate God’s principles in the Bible, and should not be allowed." *
posted by ericb at 7:44 PM on November 7, 2006

Really? Then what do you do about His claim about who He is?

I think it's silly. Kierkegaard talks about how accepting Jesus as the son of God is an inherently absurd thing to do, and yet, it's vitally necessary as a Christian to do so. But I'm not a Christian.

If he were merely a teacher he'd be a lying crackpot worthy of no one's respect.

Speaking as a teacher, some are better than others. Jesus was a pretty good one who taught non-judgementalism and pacifism in the midst of religious hypocrisy from the Pharisees and the brute, militaristic violence of the Romans. Again, it's not all or nothing. At least, it shouldn't be.

and exactly what each of us desperately need

You need to stop extrapolating from your own experience and imposing it on the rest of us. I need kindness and understanding and respect, at times. Why do Christians, especially Evangelicals, think they're alone in this, and that only their mythology is one that works, given the existence of hundreds of competing mythologies?

I am humble enough to confess I need a Saviour.

Read your statement again. That's an incredibly un-humble thing to say. You're making Baby Jesus cry, yet again.
posted by bardic at 7:47 PM on November 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

peeping_Thomist: Nope, bardic is too busy leading cheers for his team to notice that there are serious, that is, rationally defensible, rivals to liberalism.

I have a sneaking suspicion that p_T is not about to reveal himself to be a Foucauldian antihumanist. So he's probably referring to Wahhabism. : . )
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:49 PM on November 7, 2006

mijuta writes If it weren't for people like me and others who believe in equal rights for everyone--people who fought against religious hyopcrisy and bigotry--she wouldn't even have the opportunity to bring her grandson through her church's door.

Exactly.

And lest I come across as overly anti-Catholic, there's a rich tradition of labor and progressive movements coming together with Christians, and especially Catholics, in our shared history. And we're better off for it, when religious folks stand up to the hypocrites and bigots who far too often are in charge of their own church.
posted by bardic at 7:51 PM on November 7, 2006

Yeah, I'm stoked for p_T to tell us what "postmodern" form of society is a better alternative to liberalism, writ large.

Judith Butler and sex-androids maybe? Hakim Bey and raging pederasty? Inquiring minds and all that.
posted by bardic at 7:54 PM on November 7, 2006

"1334 comments total"

Wow. You guys really ARE special!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:00 PM on November 7, 2006

bardic: I'm stoked for p_T to tell us what "postmodern" form of society is a better alternative to liberalism, writ large.

I am skeptical that there will be workable solutions at the level of modern nation-states, if that's what "writ large" is supposed to mean.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:15 PM on November 7, 2006

As to metafilter, me, my family, and whoever-we either die in our sins and go to hell because thats what we deserve-ALL OF US-or we run to Jesus, repent of our sins and believe the gospel, which is the good news that He paid the penalty of our sins so we do not have to. . . .And while it is a bit crass to refer to Him as a get-out-of-trouble card, in a way of speaking that is exactly what He is, and exactly what each of us desperately need. If He were only a teacher, we would be without hope in the world. If one thinks that all He needs to be is a teacher, one has a very proud heart indeed. And God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. What a sad and bleak worldview. [not to you, of course, because you are floating in the womb of your smug "humility"] Thank GOD I'm happy enough in my own life not to feel the need to tell everyone else what they need.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:17 PM on November 7, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes I am skeptical that there will be workable solutions at the level of modern nation-states, if that's what "writ large" is supposed to mean.

Which is a euphimism for you being full of shit.
posted by bardic at 8:22 PM on November 7, 2006

bardic, if Sandel, MacIntyre and others didn't kick Rawls's ass, how do you explain the fact that he felt compelled to completely revise his theory, abandoning in the process the neo-Kantian justificatory structure of _A Theory of Justice_ and replacing it with the pathetic one-two punch of a substantive liberal conception of rationality ("our" conception of rationality) together with the hope for overlapping consensus? You think the fact that most (liberal) universities focus on Rawls rather than on his critics shows that the glorious leader really didn't get his ass kicked?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:26 PM on November 7, 2006

Please note that bardic's claim that liberalism is the defining feature of "civilized society" is patently offensive. It's not at all offensive to me. Though anyone accepting the Mayans or Mesopotamians to have had a civilization. Or modern day Iran to be a civilization, will see it as simply incorrect. Liberalism is a defining characteristic of the modern western worlds' civilisation. Obv eh?
posted by econous at 8:30 PM on November 7, 2006

mijuta writes: If it weren't for people like me and others...
You sound really courageous. You should write a book about it.
posted by econous at 8:36 PM on November 7, 2006

With sadness I have to agree with Mike Jones that Haggard's apology is hollow. Haggard made public statements that implied Jones was lying. Now he says only that those statements were "inconsistent". He does not say which of his statements were lies. If you have lied to people, you need to say which of your statements were lies. And Haggard now says that not all of Jones's claims are true, which leaves open the logical possibility that all but one of his statements last week were true. That's now how you come clean with people.

If he was willing last week to make a set of statements, P, Q, R, I think he needs to now say which of those statements, if any, was a lie.

Does anyone else, for example konolia, think it is OK for him to speak so vaguely that he leaves open the possibility that Jones is lying about many of his claims?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:39 PM on November 7, 2006

Because thinkers are willing to revise their previous ideas in light of new ideas and evidence. It's called being "reasonable."

And I'm hardly a Rawls fanboy -- he's one among many thinkers I pointed to that have illustrated that a priori theological beliefs are not necessary to have a civil, rights-based society. But ya know, it's been a few years since I've read him, so I got his books out to peruse. Maybe I'll put an FPP together.

If anyone has gotten "their ass kicked" (quite a masochistic image -- very Opus Dei of you), it's you spouting your typical babble and not addressing my direct questions to you above.

Oh, but you've moved the goalposts yet again -- since all colleges are librul, anything at any time taught in any one of them is suspect.

I do appreciate that you've given up on the veneer of being a "rational theist" from the beginning of this thread. Bully. All published academics, even the most respected ones in their respective fields, are suspect. Just like all Catholic males fuck little boys I guess.

But beyond all this, fine. Forget I even mentioned Rawls. I'm happy to sit by Locke, Rousseau, Mill, and Jefferson and your lame attempts to try and dismiss centuries of human progress as "wrong."

Honestly big guy, there are chinks in any philosopher's armor. I've admitted as much, and I've argued that there are plenty of problems with modern liberalism. However, it's the best system we've got, period.

You're welcome to present an alternative -- hell, you threatened to recently. What's stopping you? Why don't you go ahead and lay your cards on the table? Where, oh where peeping_Thomist, did liberalism go wrong? When we stopped burning witches at the stake? When we outlawed slavery? When women got the right to vote? Please do tell.
posted by bardic at 8:40 PM on November 7, 2006

econous, knock yourself out--but you do realize we're a mix of positions on this? My bag of bones works best on the credulous.
posted by econous at 8:40 PM on November 7, 2006

24 seat Dem majority in the House as of now, even if the races still in play go Republican. Which they won't.
posted by bardic at 10:38 PM on November 7, 2006

Yow, I need to learn not too keep two threads open.

Mea culpa.
posted by bardic at 10:40 PM on November 7, 2006

With sadness I have to agree with Mike Jones that Haggard's apology is hollow.

This is his real stupidity, and his lack of Christian values. The public, just like Christ, has an enormous capacity for forgiveness, but only when the confession is true and heartfelt. Haggard's excuses fooled no one, and since he failed to confess truthfully he has lost his church. If he had come right out and said "I was weak, I request forgiveness from the Lord and from my parish" I bet his congregation would have forgiven him. He at least stood a better chance with that strategy than with the foolish lies. It's the cover-up, not the crime, that brings so many people down.
posted by caddis at 10:47 PM on November 7, 2006

I'm kind of glad he lied, though, as all these super-church, tele-evangelist, whatever, get me a big fancy car through being a church leader. types are the scum of the earth, beneath contemp, and when they get theirs, it doesn't make me sad.
posted by caddis at 10:52 PM on November 7, 2006

You think the fact that most (liberal) universities focus on Rawls rather than on his critics shows that the glorious leader really didn't get his ass kicked?

How very Rumsfeldian of you. Let me try:

You think that the fact that most sports reporters focused on the St Louis Cardinals rather than on the Detroit Tigers shows that the Cardinals really didn't get their asses kicked?

Nice. Very satisfying. Another!

You think that the fact that most historians focused on Abraham Lincoln rather than on the Stephen Douglas shows that the Lincoln really didn't get his ass kicked?

Ahhhh.


thanks, peeping_ThomistSophist.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:42 AM on November 8, 2006

I am skeptical that there will be workable solutions at the level of modern nation-states, if that's what "writ large" is supposed to mean.

So your utopia is a global Christian theocracy? Or what other potential alternatives would solve this status quo, i.e. liberalism and nation states?
posted by uncle harold at 2:54 AM on November 8, 2006

Disconnect dem bones, dem dry bones
I hear the word of the Lord!
posted by econous at 3:33 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb, your point seems to be that might makes right. If "winning" is about controlling more institutions, there's no doubt liberals are "winning". But when someone as important (and impressive!) as Rawls has to revise his theory in response to devastating communitarian criticism, in such a way as to concede the central claims of communitarianism (about the essential relativity of rationality), something significant has happened.

uncle_harold: So your utopia is a global Christian theocracy?

Absolutely not. I don't have a utopia. And I don't think that making plans for a "global" government, of whatever sort, is going to work out in the near or long term. For some reason, liberals can't seem to avoid thinking in terms of universal solutions to particular problems.

In any case, I was happy to vote yesterday not to permit the sale of beer and wine in my city. The carpetbaggers keep putting this proposal on the ballot and the good, God-fearing people where I live keep voting it down.

Local control, that's where it's at, baby. Good luck getting gay marriages recognized where I live!

bardic, you seem impressed by a lot of dead white liberals. Rawls (though technically also a dead white liberal) is state-of-the-art, and he ended up in full retreat with his tail between his legs. That's what happens to liberals who are willing to follow the argument where it leads, rather than merely seeking to churn out propaganda for the status quo.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:36 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb, your point seems to be that might makes right.

No, my point was that your point (we can assume A lost because none of the prominment voices in A's field of endeavor talks about A's opponents/competitors) is an absurd one. My larger point is that you're a sophist who will say pretty much anything, no matter how absured or baseless, to make your point. Like, for example, just now when you tried to put words in my mouth.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:49 AM on November 8, 2006

But when someone as important (and impressive!) as Rawls has to revise his theory in response to devastating communitarian criticism, in such a way as to concede the central claims of communitarianism (about the essential relativity of rationality), something significant has happened.

Uh, you just argued he doesn't matter. Now you argue that he does. Personally, I'm a fan, but I'm bigger into Rorty and Habermas (although they have differences) for the finer points of late capitalist democracy.

As for other "dead white liberals," as mentioned, I'm a fan of Jesus as well. Obviously you're not. Your loss. What he said is worth reading. Give it a shot if you're not to busy ejaculating into appropriate orifices and what not.

That's what happens to liberals who are willing to follow the argument where it leads

Again, feel free to propose your anti-liberal utopia. I've asked you some simple questions. As others have. And you're incapable of answering them.

As for turning my tail? Rick Santorum and George Allen will never threaten our democracy ever again with their hypocrisy. That's a win on many levels, including you, but it sounds like you're incapable or realizing this.

But again, at what point did Liberalism fail the modern world? When witches stopped being burned, when blacks stop being lynched, or when women got the right to vote? I'm honestly curious.
posted by bardic at 6:56 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb attributes to me the claim that we can assume A lost because none of the prominment voices in A's field of endeavor talks about A's opponents/competitors

Huh? How did anything I said suggest this or anything remotely like it? Now that I see what you think you were responding to, I can see why you think it's absurd, but why on earth would you think I'd be making the claim you attribute to me?

My larger point is that you're a sophist who will say pretty much anything, no matter how absurd or baseless, to make your point.

Wouldn't a more charitable reading be that (somehow) I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:59 AM on November 8, 2006

For some reason, liberals can't seem to avoid thinking in terms of universal solutions to particular problems.

For some reason, you can't seem to avoid making sweeping generalizations when confronted by singular interlocutors.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:51 AM on November 8, 2006

In any case, I was happy to vote yesterday not to permit the sale of beer and wine in my city. The carpetbaggers keep putting this proposal on the ballot and the good, God-fearing people where I live keep voting it down.

Good work. I bet no one in your area can get their hands on alcohol now. Man, if we made drugs illegal that would surely keep them out of the hands of ne'er-do-wells. I can't believe no one thought of that yet.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:01 AM on November 8, 2006

Meanwhile, in other religion news, the United Church of Canada asks in a new ad "How much fun can sex be before it's a sin?"

Another in the series shows two plastic toy grooms on a wedding cake and asks "Does anyone object?"
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:16 AM on November 8, 2006

In any case, I was happy to vote yesterday not to permit the sale of beer and wine in my city. The carpetbaggers keep putting this proposal on the ballot and the good, God-fearing people where I live keep voting it down.

Yes, because Jesus wouldn't have wanted you to drink wine or anything.

How do you get through the day without shortcircuiting?
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:23 AM on November 8, 2006

Peep_t, does all that ponderous (and wholly unconvincing) obfuscation actually achieve anything for you? Have any real world validation, reward, renown?

Because I'd say you've otherwise found an obvious masturbatory activity to indulge in.
posted by Haruspex at 8:31 AM on November 8, 2006

bardic: thinkers [such as Rawls] are willing to revise their previous ideas in light of new ideas and evidence.

I agree, and I admire Rawls precisely because he had the integrity to acknowledge that his theory of justice had been dealt serious blows by communitarian critics. He modified his theory to take into account those critics. But note that the way in which he had to respond, ultimately, involved his acknowledging the multiplicity of substantive conceptions of rationality, something which you and nearly everyone in this forum shows no interest in acknowledging. (In _A Theory of Justice_ Rawls had dismissed what he derisively called "dominant end" theories as twisted and inhuman. He later came to see, unlike most people here, that this was not the way to proceed, not for rhetorical purposes, but for purposes of rational justification.)

You want to say (have said) that people who seek to preserve a traditional understanding of how the public square should treat sexual matters are irrational (not to mention evil, etc...). The later Rawls did not say that. He hoped for an overlapping consensus on such matters, but he came to see, as you have not, that such consensus would have to be developed according to the conceptual resources available within each tradition. Which is precisely what communitarians have always said.

That is why people who are not Christians shouting "read your Bible!" is a waste of time. (Not to mention all the vitriol.) The Catholic theologian linked to above gives an interesting reading of Romans that could help develop within the Catholic tradition resources for revising the teaching on same-sex activity. People like him are doing much more to foster overlapping consensus than any of the shrill bleating in this forum, no matter how much it is amplified and reproduced across multiple forums, could ever do. My own (reasonably well-informed) view is that people like that theologian are on the losing side of this debate within the Catholic tradition, but I am open to being shown otherwise.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:18 AM on November 8, 2006

Optimus_Chyme and adamgreenfield, we have access to alcohol where I live. It's a 10 minute drive from most places in the city to the nearest liquor store. If all the neighboring cities were dry, that would change things. I like the fact that the alcohol laws vary from city to city around here; it gives a different character to the different places. I know there are lots of people where I live who would like there to be no alcohol sales anywhere, but they are definitely in the minority. I'm happy not having alcohol sales (except in restaurants) here, and going a few minutes out of my way every once in awhile to get alcohol in a neighboring city.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:43 AM on November 8, 2006

Huh? How did anything I said suggest this or anything remotely like it?

Ready?

You: You think the fact that most (liberal) universities focus on Rawls rather than on his critics shows that the glorious leader really didn't get his ass kicked?

Me: we can assume A lost because none of the prominment voices in A's field of endeavor talks about A's opponents/competitors

Your "unviersities" really = "academic political scientists" or "academic philosophers", who are "prominent voices in [Rawls's] field."

Your "Rawls" = my "A".

Your "critics" = my "opponenets/competitors."

Your "ass kicked" = my "lost."


Wouldn't a more charitable reading be that (somehow) I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying?

You mean, you want me to look at things from your point of view for a moment and see how you might have merely been inarticulate in this thread as opposed to relying on dishonest rhetorical strategies? How very liberal I would have to be to want to even engage in such a practice... I think you'd agree we'd all be much better off if I didn't go down that path. That way leads to relativism and tolerance, and eventually, hell.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:42 AM on November 8, 2006

Peeping_Thom: "the gay political agenda is a real force in the world, and it is aimed at achieving goals that are deeply inimical to human well-being (on any substantive conception of human well-being that I am prepared to accept as the basis for our shared public life)."

Peeping Thom, could you please tell me which goals you are referring to, and how they are "deeply inimical to human well-being"?
posted by mijuta at 10:49 AM on November 8, 2006

That is why people who are not Christians shouting "read your Bible!" is a waste of time.

So, those of us who are Christians, like myself can still shout that, then?

Personally, I think that it's a big mistake to do what you seem to be here, trying to append conservatism, conservative philosophies and conservative politics to Christianity, and that notions of appealing to a Christian tradition are misguided, since tradition, as such, is something that the Bible specificaly warns against reliance on. Much of the New Testament, especailly the Gospels and the book of Acts warn against relying on tradition, and the central figures of the main narratives (Christ, the disciples, St. Paul, various virtuous non-Jews) and many of Christ's parables (e.g. -- the Good Samaritan parable) are actively engaged in undermining/ignoring/reinterpreting tradition for charity's sake. Peter ate shellfish. Christ healed on the Sabbath. Focusing on the letter of the law, as it were, might be comforting to you philosophically, but the letter kills, as St. Paul wrote. Retreating to tradition might keep you feeling safe, but it will also ensure you're never courageous as well.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:55 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]

eustacescrubb: you want me to look at things from your point of view for a moment and see how you might have merely been inarticulate in this thread as opposed to relying on dishonest rhetorical strategies?

Yes I do. I also think that in your more reflective moments you want that, just as I think we both want the same thing in my reading of what you write.

When you say things that seem to suggest you aren't interested in seeing things from my point of view, I charitably assume that your judgment has been temporarily clouded by (sometimes completely understandable) anger and frustration at my apparent obtuseness.

How very liberal I would have to be to want to even engage in such a practice

Liberalism doesn't enter into it.

Liberals have no special claim to recognizing the need to look at things from the point of view of others in order to be fully rationally justified in maintaining their own point of view. In fact, there are many liberals who fail to recognize this very point (as well as many who do recognize it).

Within every tradition there are some who recognize the need to see things from other people's point of view and others who refuse to acknowledge this need, or who see it as only a matter of a rhetorical strategy but not a requirement for the full rational justification of their own views.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:19 AM on November 8, 2006

adamgreenfield re p_T: "How do you get through the day without shortcircuiting?"

He lives entirely inside his own brain. Nothing outside that is real to him, with the possible exception of his wife - assuming she actually exists, for which we have no evidence.

Haruspex: "Peep_t, does all that ponderous (and wholly unconvincing) obfuscation actually achieve anything for you? Have any real world validation, reward, renown?"

It makes him feel very good about himself inside his brain.

"Because I'd say you've otherwise found an obvious masturbatory activity to indulge in."

Bingo! /hands Hspex a little trophy

"Peeping_Thom: "the gay political agenda is a real force in the world, and it is aimed at achieving goals that are deeply inimical to human well-being (on any substantive conception of human well-being that I am prepared to accept as the basis for our shared public life).""

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention the paranoia. Sorry about that.

And mind you, he absolutely detests a pluralistic society, but since he lives in one, he is almost psychopathically driven to wring every last little rhetorical advantage out of what he perceives "pluralism" to be.

p_T is phenomenally intelligent and masterfully manipulative. It's fortunate for all of us that he has an extremely, intensely narrow focus on a minute set of odd philosophies which most people ignore entirely, or he'd be one of the most dangerous people on earth.

Really, guys, if you keep feeding him he'll go on for another 2,000 posts or so. It's quite entertaining to me, but it does get old, y'know?
posted by zoogleplex at 11:21 AM on November 8, 2006

Dobson Quits Haggard Counseling Team.
posted by ericb at 11:26 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb: notions of appealing to a Christian tradition are misguided [...]

This is, of course, what some Christian traditions say.

eustacescrubb: tradition, as such, is something that the Bible specificaly warns against reliance on

I suppose you have in mind passages that warn against "traditions of men," rather than "tradition as such".

eustacescrubb: the central figures of the main narratives [...] are actively engaged in undermining/ignoring/reinterpreting tradition for charity's sake

I agree. That creative work continues today within properly functioning traditions.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:27 AM on November 8, 2006

Liberals have no special claim to recognizing the need to look at things from the point of view of others in order to be fully rationally justified in maintaining their own point of view.

See, this is the impression I was getting from reading your writing. You mean one thing by "liberal" and "liberalism" than pretty much everyone else in the thread. Why don't you define what you mean by "liberal" and "liberalism" before making any more claims about it?
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:29 AM on November 8, 2006

I suppose you have in mind passages that warn against "traditions of men," rather than "tradition as such".

Is there any other kind of tradition other than the kind humans make? I've never seen a nonhuman traidition.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:54 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb, the wikipedia entry on liberalism is fine by me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:57 AM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb, Paul says "for I received from the Lord what I handed on to you". Etymologically, "tradition" means "handing on". Sacred Tradition is what has been handed on to us from the Lord, and our understanding of it develops over time as we reflect on it and draw out its implications. The Christological controversies, for example, developed our understanding of what was handed on to us from the Lord.

At any point in time, there will be people who charitably work to reinterpret Sacred Tradition in a way that further develops our understanding of it. Many times these people will come into conflict. Heresy is "holding on" to your own private interpretation of what has been handed on to us from the Lord after that interpretation has been rejected by those in legitimate authority (as in the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts).

Many people do not realize that many of the fine Christians who developed positions which later were condemned as heretical were themselves never heretics at all, because they never held those positions after they were rejected by the legitimate authorities. Conflict between charitable Christians is the engine that drives the development of our understanding of what was handed on to us from the Lord.

There are many different human traditions, and we have good reason to be wary of them, but the tradition handed on to us from the Lord is not among them.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:23 PM on November 8, 2006

zoogleplex: He lives entirely inside his own brain. Nothing outside that is real to him [and so on...]

Hi, zoogleplex! The comments page invites us to "Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site." I don't see what issue, topic or fact at hand is the focus of your comment. Could you please clarify, so I can determine what would be an appropriate response?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:26 PM on November 8, 2006

Nope! I wasn't talking to you. :)

Enjoy the rest of the thread though!
posted by zoogleplex at 1:36 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist, I'll ask for a third and final time (and certainly won't hold my breath, because you've proven to be an incredibly ignorant person, but it's fun to demonstrate how simple you are) -- When did Liberalism take a wrong turn for our modern societies? When witches stop being burned, when blacks stop being lynched, or when women got the right to vote?

Man, it's funny to realize people like you still exist. Maybe you can go help Rick Santorum never be elected to anything ever again.
posted by bardic at 1:37 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes The comments page invites us to "Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site." I don't see what issue, topic or fact at hand is the focus of your comment.

I agree. In addition to being an intellectual lightweight, you need to stop taking shots at me.

Actually, don't. It's funny to think what Jesus would make of a vindictive neanderthal like yourself.
posted by bardic at 1:42 PM on November 8, 2006

"Emotionally and spiritually, I wanted to be of help - but the reality is I don't have the time to devote to such a critical responsibility," Dobson said.--from eric's link

Of course he doesn't have the time--he has to rant about us and try get our laws changed and our rights stricken--along with his own closet issues.
posted by amberglow at 2:31 PM on November 8, 2006

p_T:

We disagree on the nature of tradition, then. I don't believe there are any non-human traditions. I believe tradition can be useful and often contains great wisdom but should never be authoritative. I learned this belief by reading the Gospels, and by studying church history. What is considered authoritative today is more often than not the result of warfare and politics and not careful deliberation or inspiration. The best example I can think of is the doctrine of the Triinty, which requires a great deal of hoop-jumping to find any support for in the Bible, and yet is considered authoritative doctrine. But it came down to the fact that Athanasius was an unprincipled prick and bully -- the Karl Rove of his day, if you will, and Arius was meeker and actually thought reasoned debate would win out over politics.*
I'm guessing that your response to that would be that God uses unprincipled pricks (al la Baalam) to get his will done, which would justify the like sof Haggard and Dobson as well, I imagine, but I can't square such a belief with the idea that God is just and cares about justice. The Almighty, being almighty, should never need to stopp to the level of Athansius or James Dobson to accomplish his work.

I should note, as well, that it's very frustrating to dialogue with you, since you continually respond by reciting dogma rather than addressing the issues raised. It isn't enlightening to read what amounts to the distilled party line, especially when it rarely addresses the issue at hand. It's more tedious than reading pre-Asia Merton. Just sayin'.


*see The Rise of Western Christendom by Peter Brown
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:45 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: When did Liberalism take a wrong turn for our modern societies? When witches stop being burned, when blacks stop being lynched, or when women got the right to vote?

I don't see any of those developments as attributable primarily to liberalism. The way the question is posed strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:01 PM on November 8, 2006

Lol.
posted by bardic at 3:07 PM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb: God uses unprincipled pricks (al la Baalam) to get his will done [...] I can't square such a belief with the idea that God is just and cares about justice

The Old Testament is full of stories in which God used unprincipled pricks to get his will done. These were the Scriptures Jesus read. Surely if Jesus intended his followers to reject the principle that God uses unprincipled pricks to get his will done, he would have said something about it?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you reject the principle, or is your point that you think the history of Christianity is too full of unprincipled pricks for you to believe that God has been doing his will through them?

I'm sorry for running through mini-recitations of basic positions (such as the notion of sacred tradition), but in a forum like this it's hard to be sure what to assume the other person already knows.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:17 PM on November 8, 2006

What do you attribute those developments to? The Vatican? They were on the wrong side of all three advancements (and the Holocaust as well).

If you're going to trash modern, liberal society, you ought to propose an alternative. Please do so.
posted by bardic at 3:18 PM on November 8, 2006

"Surely if Jesus intended his followers to reject the principle that God uses unprincipled pricks to get his will done, he would have said something about it?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

That's the funniest frakkin' thing I've seen in weeks. I just laughed out loud and all my cow-orkers are looking at me funny.

Priceless!! I boggle!!!
posted by zoogleplex at 3:42 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: If you're going to trash modern, liberal society, you ought to propose an alternative.

I disagree.

You appear to be asking me to propose a large-scale solution that could be adopted by modern nation-states, perhaps by a majority vote or some such, that a reasonable person could find acceptable. There is no such thing.

I think reasonable people at this point are directing most of their efforts toward nurturing local forms of community through which the lived reality of the human (and, in communities for which this is appropriate, the theological) virtues can be preserved and transmitted through the next phase of history, which will be quite dark.

What "alternative" could a Christian have proposed early on in the fall of the Roman empire, when the barbarism and the decadence were in full swing, but the irreplaceable manuscripts of antiquity weren't yet being used as kindling? The monasteries certainly were not an "alternative" to the Roman empire in the sense of being an answer to the same question to which the Roman empire was an answer.

I reject the notion that a sensible answer to the question of how we should live going forward must either assume the survival of the modern nation-state, or else hypothesize means for a painless transition from the modern nation-state to some more desirable institutional form. The modern nation-state will not survive, and there are no possible means for a painless transition from the modern nation-state to something better (or, so far as I can tell, to something worse). So I contribute as best I can to the local forms of community that are available to me where I live, and I work at linking together networks of families who are not rootless cosmopolitans. And in my spare time I trash modern, liberal society. I'm under no obligation to propose an alternative.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:58 PM on November 8, 2006

Did anyone feel the mighty impact of my bones in a bag? I had them cleansed in Haiti, the best place.
posted by econous at 4:02 PM on November 8, 2006

And, no, "rootless cosmopolitans" is not code for Jews.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:02 PM on November 8, 2006

"...rootless cosmopolitans" = безродный космополит

Hell, even Stalin didn't try to deprive the suffering multitudes of wine and beer.

You've trashed nothing, p_t. You've just typified the prionic effect dogma has upon the higher order intellectual functions. Have fun with that.
posted by Haruspex at 4:06 PM on November 8, 2006

This thread is still going? Wow. Doesn't make much sense though, I am guessing most of the comments are directed at someone I have killfiled. Too lazy to reload the page without the filter and see who it is. Oh well. Try to make 1500, you crazy bastards.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:06 PM on November 8, 2006

konolia: Ever read the parable of the Pharisee and the publican? You might find it interesting.


Ah, Konolia, I cited that parable well upthread. It applies quite well here. Turns out the gospel of Luke is available for secular humanists to read too. But you seem to be mistaken about who is acting the Pharisee's part here.

peeping_Thomist, your Humian meanderings confuse me. You say: I agree that evangelicals don't take seriously enough the fact that we are primates. But it doesn't follow from the fact that I am a primate that it therefore is reasonable or appropriate for me to masturbate, given what little I have been able to comprehend of the beauty and majesty of the marital act.

Most evangelicals overtly deny that we're kin to other primates, at all. It's nto that they don't "take it seriously enough." I never said being a primate made it reasonable or appropriate to masturbate. It's neither reasonable nor unreasonable; and appropriateness is always a matter of social convention and context. Not at a board meeting, not in church, etc. It isn't a question of reason or appropriateness. It's a question of basic instinctual drives.

Do I believe it's possible for the human mind to overrule an instinct? Sure. But not for many people, males especially, and not over a period as long as 20 years, and not for something as trivial and inconsequential (as in, lacking consequences) as masturbation. I call bullshit. That's all. Hume has nothing to do with it. I don't believe you any more than if you told us you hadn't taken a crap in 2 weeks.

Anyway, we have our answer. Evangelicals have had their asses handed to them in this election. Ixnay onSouth Dakota's abortion bill, Arizona's gay marriage ban, and Missouri's stem cell research ban. The grownups, thank Gaia, are back in charge and the jesus freaks can go back to worrying about their own souls. Thanks, Ted Haggard, for your part in helping this happen.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:10 PM on November 8, 2006

Damn, how us heathen rage, huh?

But despite all the monotonous philo-theo folderol, Peep_t sounds like a fairly consistent 19th C Newman-nite (Newman-non?), regarding " . . . that the exterior world, physical and historical, was but the manifestation to our senses of realities greater than itself."

But it's not the 19th C, it's the 21st, and these ahistorical tautologies are tattered. No matter how devout, eloquent, impassioned or dispassionate you may be, if your fundamental ontology is a supernatural unknowable noumena, then you've excused yourself from rational discourse. Doesn't mean that you can't diddle yourself endlessly with phrases like "[m]any non-religious thinkers agree with Christians that the value of a single human life transcends the value of the entire material world" — and perhaps to some, that sounds mighty damn impressive — but it's semantically null. Ad kiss my astra, etc.

Bardic's far better equipped than p_T (and certainly me) to argue the philosophic intricacies; I simply wish to note the incessant irrelevance of the droning.
posted by Haruspex at 4:19 PM on November 8, 2006

fourcheesemac: "Most evangelicals overtly deny that we're kin to other primates, at all."

Yes, but it is a fact, and they are foolish not to believe it and to take it seriously.

fourcheesemac: "Do I believe it's possible for the human mind to overrule an instinct? Sure. But not for many people, males especially, and not over a period as long as 20 years, and not for something as trivial and inconsequential (as in, lacking consequences) as masturbation. I call bullshit. That's all. Hume has nothing to do with it. I don't believe you any more than if you told us you hadn't taken a crap in 2 weeks."

Sorry, but what I said is true. (One of my defects is that I tend to be overly scrupulous about truth-telling, not shading the truth when it might be appropriate.) I am not bragging, because I don't think of it as any great achievement. But I can remember a time when I would have said exactly what you are saying, because at that time I couldn't have imagined myself going that long without masturbating. So I don't resent your inability to believe me. For what it's worth, the tradition of the virtues teaches that disciplining the passions brings them into sharper focus and makes them function better, and that has been my experience. YMMV.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:24 PM on November 8, 2006

In any case, I was happy to vote yesterday not to permit the sale of beer and wine in my city.

jesus wants to know if he can still change water into wine there
posted by pyramid termite at 4:33 PM on November 8, 2006

oh, yes, and your argument for such locale based prohibitions are basically bourgeous in the worst kind of way ... but ...

You appear to be asking me to propose a large-scale solution that could be adopted by modern nation-states, perhaps by a majority vote or some such, that a reasonable person could find acceptable. There is no such thing.


that's not what pope john paul ii thought, is it?

and econous ...

Did anyone feel the mighty impact of my bones in a bag? I had them cleansed in Haiti, the best place.

my bones are from chicken coop ... feel the power of my jesus chicken!!
posted by pyramid termite at 4:39 PM on November 8, 2006

"No matter how devout, eloquent, impassioned or dispassionate you may be, if your fundamental ontology is a supernatural unknowable noumena, then you've excused yourself from rational discourse."

Wonderfully well-said, Haruspex. In our previous encounter, p_T and I went back and forth for some length because I expressed my opinion that he was entirely irrational even though his intelligence and language skills are both formidable. This brought on a long (and similarly droning) set of posts about the philosophical nature of rationality and how I, not he, was the one who is irrational. (Just warning you; don't let him suck you into that vortex.)

You have summed up my thoughts on the subject with far superior erudition to my own. Bravo!

When's this thread going to get back to Haggard?
posted by zoogleplex at 4:49 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist, your freedom to worship as you please, to read the books that you please, to raise a family as you please, and to "build community" as you please (from what I can tell, something along the lines of David Koresh) all stem from the triumph of liberalism over theocracy.

I can name many countries where you wouldn't be able to do any of these things.

If you can't see that, you're an idiot. Sorry.
posted by bardic at 4:50 PM on November 8, 2006

Oh.. Sorry. Idiot.
posted by econous at 4:52 PM on November 8, 2006

his intelligence and language skills are both formidable

We must be reading different threads.
posted by bardic at 4:56 PM on November 8, 2006

pyramid termite : I like your Jesus chicken, and would like to suck it up through a wide bore straw, with an eye. My magic bag of bones is shit. The libruls failed to ignite. Just one guy protesting. I've lost faith in voodoo.
posted by econous at 5:00 PM on November 8, 2006

In related news --

Ballot Measure Losses Jolt the Religious Right
"Anti-abortion, stem cell, same-sex issues all falter; leaders left wondering."
posted by ericb at 5:04 PM on November 8, 2006

"It is time to end the abortion wars," said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
posted by econous at 5:25 PM on November 8, 2006

Haruspex: "if your fundamental ontology is a supernatural unknowable noumena, then you've excused yourself from rational discourse."

I completely agree, and my fundamental ontology isn't anything of the sort. My reference to Kant probably is the source of the problem here. I was citing him as a secular thinker who agrees with Christians about something, not as someone whose metaphysics are acceptable to a reasonable person today. I think metaphysics cannot be separated from science, and that means modern natural science. I am satisfied that arguments like this are faring sufficiently well to avoid the kinds of objections you probably would want to raise, but this is an area, one of many, in which there will always be new challenges that will have to be answered.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:31 PM on November 8, 2006

pyramid_termite: that's not what pope john paul ii thought, is it?

Fortunately Catholics are not obliged to agree with the political opinions of the pope.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:33 PM on November 8, 2006

is your point that you think the history of Christianity is too full of unprincipled pricks for you to believe that God has been doing his will through them?

Yes.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:41 PM on November 8, 2006

Peeping_Thomist: One of my defects is that I tend to be overly scrupulous about truth-telling, not shading the truth when it might be appropriate.

Oh puhleeze. All Cretans are liars. Haggard-esque, even.

Yes, but it is a fact, and they are foolish not to believe it and to take it seriously.

"They" is a a huge percentage of Christians around the world who deny the evident naturalistic facts that explain the "mysteries" they've sung voodoo chants about for centuries. It's not like, gee it's a shame more Christians don't attend to their own marriages. It proves Haruspex's point: it's impossible to debate with you because you appeal to noumena and assure us they are there, and that you always tell the truth.

No. You. Don't. There is no *confirmable* truth to the propositions essential to religious arguments for anything. You espouse non-truths (if not untruths) about the biggest subject of all, all the while protesting that it is impossible for you to lie about the littlest things. Casuistry, my dear Thomist, should be your middle name.

No one always tells the truth, especially to themselves. Ask Ted Haggard.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:45 PM on November 8, 2006

I like your Jesus chicken

well, you'll have to come to the american midwest to get it ... beats the hell out of kfc

(i'd link to them, but oddly enough, chicken coop doesn't have a web site)

Fortunately Catholics are not obliged to agree with the political opinions of the pope.

yet
posted by pyramid termite at 5:47 PM on November 8, 2006

Actually, I have to elaborate: the Biblical stories are indeed filled with unprincipled pricks (Moses, Abraham, Lot, David, etc) but they're unprincipled pricks that end up doing God's work in spite of being unprincipled pricks. Since I reference Balaam, that story is as good a template as any -- Balaam intends to prophesy against the Jews, but ends up prophesying for them.
That is wholly different from what one finds in post-Biblical Christianity, esp. around and after Constantine. Athanasius, for example, had his way not in spite of being an unprincipled prick, but because he was an unprincipled prick.
So I'm not saying I don't think God might work through an unprincipled prick like Athanasius or James Dobson; I'm saying that if God did that, it would be in spite of their prickery -- it would be redemptive in nature. Athanasius's victory was not, and a great many of the major turning points in Christian history that have decided tradition (King Clovis's slaughter of the Visigoths; Henry VIII's secession from Rome so he could divorce his wife both come to mind) are the direct result of bloody politics and actual bloodshed. That is what makes me suspicious of the idea that there is a God-breathed Christian tradition.
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:53 PM on November 8, 2006

fourcheesemac: "No one always tells the truth, especially to themselves. Ask Ted Haggard."

I agree with that. I think the kind of scrupulosity I was talking about is a failing with respect to truth-telling. I sometimes say things that are literally true but that will mislead people. I also don't think I have all that great self-knowledge. But I still know perfectly well when the last time I masturbated was, and I haven't lied about that. I'm not sure why you think it's important to "call bullshit" on that. Anyway, I don't resent it, and you are certainly right about how difficult it is to be honest with others and with oneself.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:04 PM on November 8, 2006

eustacescrubb: "a great many of the major turning points in Christian history that have decided tradition [...] are the direct result of bloody politics and actual bloodshed. That is what makes me suspicious of the idea that there is a God-breathed Christian tradition."

I sympathize with your skepticism. Still, I'm impressed at how the papacy has had so many unworthy occupants but has not taught heresy. This might sound like a tautology but it isn't; there were corrupt popes who came this close to breaking wtih the apostolic tradition. I think "you are Peter" is a promise that has been made good on despite the many unprincipled pricks who have held the petrine office. That's an empirically falsifiable claim: there are claims such that, if the pope taught them, I'd have to cease being Catholic. Anyway, the examples you gave (Athanasius, Clovis, Henry VIII) are all disturbing, but they don't, as I see it, touch directly on the guarantee Christ gave that "the gates of hell" wouldn't prevail against the Church founded on the Petrine office.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:15 PM on November 8, 2006

fourcheesemac: "There is no *confirmable* truth to the propositions essential to religious arguments for anything."

Rationally defensible arguments for religious propositions essentially depend upon confirmable claims about nature, such as claims about the causal structure of natural things, or even that there are natural things.

Perhaps what you meant to say is that some of the propositions upon which religious arguments essentially depend are not confirmable?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:24 PM on November 8, 2006

wasn't that whole selling of indulgences, and making your relatives Church officials, and being horribly murderous and corrupt people like the Borgia Pope, and ordering Crusades and Inquisitions , etc, heresies?
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on November 8, 2006

Wow, I prefer the simple truths of bardic or konolia. This fencing is fucking up my bone bag baby. Vive la ignorance!
posted by econous at 6:32 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes But I still know perfectly well when the last time I masturbated was, and I haven't lied about that.

Jesus Fucking Christ, would you shut up about this?
posted by bardic at 6:38 PM on November 8, 2006

Hm.

First: Heresy is "holding on" to your own private interpretation of what has been handed on to us from the Lord after that interpretation has been rejected by those in legitimate authority...

Then: ...the papacy has had so many unworthy occupants but has not taught heresy.

I'm confused. Is the only thing keeping them from being heretics the fact that they were called "popes"?
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:45 PM on November 8, 2006

But I still know perfectly well when the last time I masturbated was

and we ALL now know perfectly well when the last time you masturbated was ... the priest you confessed it to 20 years ago has almost certainly forgotten it, but WE know

that should make us all feel quite special, but somehow, it doesn't, i fear

by the way ... which hand?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:52 PM on November 8, 2006

I'm just glad this thread hasn't furthered the stereotype that Opus Dei-style Catholic males are sex-obsessed creeps/borderline perverts who believe that Democracy was a bad idea.
posted by bardic at 6:58 PM on November 8, 2006

I'm happy not having alcohol sales (except in restaurants) here, and going a few minutes out of my way every once in awhile to get alcohol in a neighboring city.

Yah, I can see how that works out really well for you.

It must suck for those people who don't own a car.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:09 PM on November 8, 2006

pyramid termite: "that should make us all feel quite special, but somehow, it doesn't, i fear"

No, rest assured, you're the only ones to whom I've mentioned this.

bardic: "sex-obsessed creeps/borderline perverts who believe that Democracy was a bad idea."

You sure go in for name-calling.

Anyway, I don't equate democracy and liberalism, and neither should you. I guess it shouldn't come as a surpirse that someone who would equate "civilized" with "modern" would equate "democratic" with "liberal".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:12 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist Iv'e a lot of respect for the way you are holding your position from this rather slimey onslaught. I'd like to ask a question, feel freely. Can you spare a brother some myelin?
posted by econous at 7:15 PM on November 8, 2006

It must suck for those people who don't own a car.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:09 AM GMT on November 9
Mate if you don't have a car then what are you? A communist? Yeah so many tears have been shed for the car-less. Poor fuckers. Only good thing is they are usually ugly as brick out-houses. Can you here the word of the lord? Holy shit I'm being converted.
posted by econous at 7:20 PM on November 8, 2006

five fresh fish: "It must suck for those people who don't own a car."

We have a lot of borderline-poor neighborhoods, such as the one I live in, that would turn ugly really quickly if they had liquor stores in them. We also have a lot of outright poor neighborhoods. The pressure for beer and wine sales comes from the parts of town that are more prosperous and have mostly single-family dwellings (far out of my price range) and expensive apartments for professionals. The more well-off in our city want to be able to hop in their cars and quickly go to the grocery store and buy beer and wine. It's the people in my part of town, in the poorer neighborhoods, some of whom, as you note, do not own cars, who reliably turn out every few years to vote against beer and wine sales. We've seen how alcohol sales have affected the poorer neighborhoods in nearby cities. It's not a good dynamic. Poverty and easy access to alcohol are not a good mix. Those of you who think individual liberty is the most important political value should take a good look at how the regulation of access to alcohol affects how the poor live. Paternalistic? You bet.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:28 PM on November 8, 2006

I guess it shouldn't come as a surpirse that someone who would equate "civilized" with "modern" would equate "democratic" with "liberal".

I think your work in this thread can best be summed up from a comment above -- the stupid, it burns.

And really, you can't go ten mintues without talking about sex. If you were 13, you'd have an excuse.
posted by bardic at 7:30 PM on November 8, 2006

Poverty and easy access to alcohol are not a good mix.

Because rich people never drink or do drugs.

It's too bad we give the poor any rights at all, honestly.
posted by bardic at 7:33 PM on November 8, 2006

here = hear Some errors are just too irritating to leave alone.
posted by econous at 7:35 PM on November 8, 2006

...apex twin...
posted by econous at 7:37 PM on November 8, 2006

No, rest assured, you're the only ones to whom I've mentioned this.

and there's only 45,000 of us ...

We have a lot of borderline-poor neighborhoods, such as the one I live in, that would turn ugly really quickly if they had liquor stores in them.

because those poor people just can't hold their booze

he pressure for beer and wine sales comes from the parts of town that are more prosperous and have mostly single-family dwellings (far out of my price range) and expensive apartments for professionals.

proof that yuppies are no better than heathens

It's the people in my part of town, in the poorer neighborhoods, some of whom, as you note, do not own cars, who reliably turn out every few years to vote against beer and wine sales.

and yet, oddly enough, such virtue is not enough to lift them out of poverty ... and the causes of that poverty remain somewhat unaddressed by your local political establishment, which is quite willing to tolerate the poor as long as they're the sober poor ...

We've seen how alcohol sales have affected the poorer neighborhoods in nearby cities.

and of course, the crack or the meth or other fun things have nothing to do with that

Those of you who think individual liberty is the most important political value should take a good look at how the regulation of access to alcohol affects how the poor live.

there are no political values without individual liberty, only received and non-negotiable ones ...

Paternalistic?

in the same manner as a guy who pays the child support but doesn't lift a finger to get involved with his kid ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:48 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: "Because rich people never drink or do drugs."

Maybe you missed where I pointed out that in our city it is the rich who want to make it more convenient to buy alcohol. They fund the petition drives and the advertising campaigns to get out the vote for the propositions to allow beer and wine sales. But since most of the more prosperous citizens around here are carpetbaggers, they don't vote in very large numbers.

"It's too bad we give the poor any rights at all, honestly."

Maybe you missed the part where I pointed out that it is the poorer neighborhoods in my city that consistently (several times in the past 20 years) turn out in large numbers to vote against the beer and wine sales sought by the more prosperous neighborhoods in my city.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:50 PM on November 8, 2006

People can screw up their lives with a lot of things, like religion. Although alcoholism isn't a joke, I agree.

However, once again I hate to play Dr. Obvious, but what you're telling us here in an attempt to indict the evil cult of "individual liberty" is really the truest affirmation of it. Presumably, you and your neighbors don't want alcohol sales in your county. So you guys coordinate a bit, and get the word out when a referendum is coming up about said sales. And then you vote it down.

Notice something here? Or was it Jesus who won the vote for you, rather than individual voters expressing their liberal democratic rights?
posted by bardic at 8:00 PM on November 8, 2006

Or to put it another way, there are many non-liberal countries where Allah decides if alchohol sales are legal, not citizens expressing their democratic rights through voting.

So again, please try to explain how nasty liberal democratic Amurica is inferior to, say, pre-invasion Afghanistan under the Taliban, where "individual rights" were indeed subsumed to the theocrats, who happened to carry Kalashnikovs and murder women for not wearing enough clothing. If America ever became like that, would you consider it a "step in the rigth direction" (replacing Allah with Jesus, of course).

Faith is an important part of some people's lives. It would be silly of me to deny that, and I haven't. But your right to practice your faith isn't a given in many parts of the world. Again, I could name some countries you might try expressing your Catholocism in. You'd be quickly arrested and/or shot.

This is like, 4th-grade civics class stuff.
posted by bardic at 8:10 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: "what you're telling us here in an attempt to indict the evil cult of "individual liberty" is really the truest affirmation of it."

Hey, if you think the truest affirmation of individual liberty is outlawing alcohol sales or sodomy, maybe we can talk. That wasn't what I was picking up on earlier in the thread. I was being told that outlawing sodomy was a clear denial of individual liberty, not its truest affirmation. Maybe we can all have a group hug after all!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:10 PM on November 8, 2006

Nope, I didn't say that. And while I'd like to think you know I didn't say that, I'm starting to wonder if you aren't just plain kinda stupid.

You're the absolutist here when it comes to laws, morality, your wife's ass, and your own penis. Voting in a referendum like the one mentioned would be a minor, but important aspect of the benefits we have thanks to living in a liberal democracy. And believe me, I'm quite cynical when it comes to America today and its politics, but the fact that someone needs to sit you down and explain this to you is weird (albeit fascinating, like if I dug a Cro-magnon out of an ice block and thawed him out and had to teach him how to turn on a television set).

And please, don't creep me out even further.
posted by bardic at 8:21 PM on November 8, 2006

Hey, if you think the truest affirmation of individual liberty is outlawing alcohol sales or sodomy, maybe we can talk.

no, the truest affirmation of individual liberty is the concept that people will make mistakes, some of them serious, and the benefits of liberty outweigh the drawbacks of those mistakes
posted by pyramid termite at 8:34 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: "the fact that someone needs to sit you down and explain this to you is weird "

It is charming that you fancy you are explaining things to me. It shows that you are not yet willing to acknowledge what even Rawls was eventually willing to acknowledge: that there are substantively different conceptions of practical rationality, and hence a person who remains unimpressed by your arguments may well not have failed to understand them.

The project of constructing arguments for liberalism from premises which any minimally rational person must accept is dead. Even the late-20th-century's premier defender of liberalism in the end was forced to abandon the project. Please come to grips with that fact.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:14 PM on November 8, 2006

You're a piece of work, I'll give you that. What university do you teach poltical science at, btw?
posted by bardic at 9:41 PM on November 8, 2006

Wow, excuse my spelling. But not my laughter at this claim: The project of constructing arguments for liberalism from premises which any minimally rational person must accept is dead.

Citation please! And more to the point, you can reject liberalism all you want to. But it hasn't rejected you -- you have the right to vote, free speech, etc. I guess I won't hold out for your professing gratefulness any time soon, but realize that your entire argument here has been utterly pointless. To wit, if it's raining and I go outside, I can scream "I'm not wet" all I want. The rest of the world will disagree. And point and laugh.
posted by bardic at 9:46 PM on November 8, 2006

bardic: "[...] realize that your entire argument here has been utterly pointless. To wit, if it's raining and I go outside, I can scream "I'm not wet" all I want. The rest of the world will disagree. And point and laugh."

Let me get this right: pointing out that intellectually respectable liberalism has been forced to refashion itself into a particularly unreflective variant of communitarianism, on which "we" are liberals because "we" happen to like living that way, and if pushed for further justification "we" set out to achieve "reflective equilibrium" between "our" "intuitions" about principles and about particular judgments--in other words, pointing out that liberalism has become a form of identity politics--is equivalent to shouting "I'm not wet" while standing in the rain?

I don't see it, and I don't think my failure to see it is because I am "stupid" or stand in need of having you "explain" something to me, bardic.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:10 PM on November 8, 2006

Christ. What an asshole!
posted by hal9k at 11:48 PM GMT on November 2

Well I've just got that. Ha. Slow? Mmm.. I guess.
posted by econous at 11:42 PM on November 8, 2006

peeping_Thomist, are you some kind of fool? Had you concentrated on the semantics about 540 comments earlier you would've embarrassed these liberals. Take heart though p_T, bardic and the faggots are making fools of themselves and feeling good about it. Your doing just as well, only not feeling so good. Woop de fucking do. <2 048 bit encryption>[want bum sex now?]<2 048 bit encryption>
posted by econous at 11:51 PM on November 8, 2006

It shows that you are not yet willing to acknowledge what even Rawls was eventually willing to acknowledge

Maybe what Rawls was and wasn't willing to acknowledge doesn't actually matter. One liberal philosopher out of hundreds changing his mind about some ideas doesn't negate everything about liberalism. Because few poeple are concerned with philosophical consistency, after all, and often, it doesn't matter -- philosophy doesn't make people liberal, rather, those liberals who like to philosophize choose philosophy as the language to describe how and why they do things. People who actually think that some text or discourse is governing people's actions are pretty naive, IMHO. Take Ted Haggard. His deviation from what he believes is Biblical sexual mores is not unusual or surprising, because, as has been pointed out, evangelicals are unable to let the text they worship govern their lives.
This is what I was driving at before: most people in this thread, including you, are practical liberals, meaning that we accept liberal societal constructs (freedom of speech, cultural relativism, tolerance, the marketplace of ideas, the "free" market, etc) as given and behave accordingly. If Rawls rose from the dead and denounced his theories, I doubt it would matter. Just like if the Archbishop of the evangelicals turns out to be a cock-sucking meth user, it doesn't really matter to evangelicals. The difference between liberals and evangelicals is partly that liberalism doesn't include the requirement to worship a text. It has other contradictions, to be sure, (see Fish, Stanley) but for most of us here, the contradictions aren't outweighed by the benefits.

And, maybe, you're concentrating on the wrong Rawls. this one matters more, methinks.
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:52 AM on November 9, 2006

peeping_Thomist, did you vote a few days ago or not? If you did, you kind of bough hook-line-and-sinker into this silly liberalism thing.
posted by bardic at 5:56 AM on November 9, 2006

*bough=bought. Ugh. Where's Jesus when I need her?
posted by bardic at 5:58 AM on November 9, 2006

Haggard begins spiritual 'restoration'

"I see success approximately 50 percent of the time," said H.B. London, vice president for church and clergy at Focus on the Family, the conservative Christian ministry in Colorado Springs. "Guys just wear out and they can no longer subject themselves to the process."

Those who fail "end up selling cars or shoes or something, and being miserable and angry the rest of their lives," London said.

Those who succeed sell Manolos.
posted by Robert Angelo at 7:52 AM on November 9, 2006

eustacescrubb: "most people in this thread [...] are practical liberals, meaning that we accept liberal societal constructs [...] as given and behave accordingly."

That's what "unreflective" was meant to convey when I wrote that "intellectually respectable liberalism has been forced to refashion itself into a particularly unreflective variant of communitarianism". Perhaps you "practical liberals" in this thread imagine that somewhere off at prestigious universities there are "theoretical liberals" who fight the good fight against anti-liberals, but the "theoretical" liberals have all become "practical" liberals just like you.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:17 AM on November 9, 2006

Christ. What an asshole!

"Even Jesus has a smelly anus." (borrowed from the Jesus Camp thread).
posted by ericb at 8:25 AM on November 9, 2006

Robert Angelo: "Those who fail "end up selling cars or shoes or something, and being miserable and angry the rest of their lives," London said."

The failed evangelical preacher is a type where I live. It's true: you come across these guys selling cars or shoes or mortgages, and they are clearly miserable and angry. It's really pathetic.

My own view is that this happens because of the way the evangelical preacher's authority depends so much on charisma and book learning. We Catholics know that our priests are typically boring and dim-witted, but their authority doesn't come from anything about them, so a person who doesn't complete the process of becoming a priest, or becomes a priest and is later laicized, can usually make the transition to civilian life. But people in evangelical communities who are attracted to positions of authority know that everything turns upon the personality of the pastor. To fail as an evangelical pastor is to fail as a person in a way that failing as a priest is not. No wonder they are miserable and angry.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:32 AM on November 9, 2006

p_T:

I disagree that practical = unreflective. We disagree on what philosophy is for, I think. It's wrong of you to assume that because I am a "practical liberal" that I don't spend time thinking about the contradictions in liberal ideas or in liberalism's flaws. The difference is that where you (seem to) operate on the assumption that philosophy is supposed to result in some description of/prescription for some perfect ordering of the world (and probably the soul) and that accepting anything less is evidence of intellectual deficieny, I think that philosophy ought to serve us, and not the other way 'round. All the mental energy you want liberal academics to focus on are, in my opinion, a waste of time. Such energy is better spent on figuring out how to solve problems and make life better for people. Since I don't think language can ever be a mirror to nature, I find such pursuits not necessariyl a waste of time, but deinfitely less important than engagin the world and solving problems.

And I think that many Americans are in a similar position. You seem to be takign the typical conservative position that since liberals don't see all the facts you see and come to the conclusions you do that we must either be apathetic, unreflective or maybe stupid. That's the default conservative reaction to the common phenomenon of intelligent people rejecting conservative ideas.
For me, I rejected conservatism a long time ago because while conservative ideas often have a nice, satisfying symmetry to them, they usually fail when put into practice, as is pretty evident by looking the Rev. Haggard or the history of the Catholic Church in general.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:03 AM on November 9, 2006

They might be miserable and angry because (a) they've been emotionally and intellectually abused by the church and (b) they are always in conflict with their true self.

Surely what Haggard is going through now is closer to CIA-style non-physical torture, than it is a Christ like conversion experience.

Fortunately, the deep believers are those who seek personal suffering. If they didn't, they certainly wouldn't belong to such a repressive church!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:13 AM on November 9, 2006

The failed evangelical preacher is a type where I live. It's true: you come across these guys selling cars or shoes or mortgages

Damn. My father really is a failed evangelical preacher who sells cars.
posted by mattbucher at 9:52 AM on November 9, 2006

We Catholics know that our priests are typically boring and dim-witted

except when compared to the online apologists ... seriously, what are you trying to convince people of with asinine statements like that? ... i've met some fairly interesting priests ...

To fail as an evangelical pastor is to fail as a person in a way that failing as a priest is not.

it's beyond me how you can say that, having neither failed or succeeded at either ... in fact, i can't imagine how anyone can fail as anything without also failing as a person

No wonder they are miserable and angry.

it's a step above being miserable and narcissistic
posted by pyramid termite at 9:54 AM on November 9, 2006

FWIW, my sister's first husband is a "failed evangelical preacher" and has been quite miserable and clinically depressed for many years. He's not gay, though, but he always was depressed, possibly bipolar. He's also morbidly obese, in part due to his depression, unable to hold a job, and for several years he's been on disability related to physical complications related to the obesity. I hate to say it (but I will anyhow), he's really pathetic.

My sister met him in college in the 1970s, and they both joined a Charismatic church, spoke in tounges, prayed for healings, and so on. This was quite a change from her Catholic upbringing, to say the least. They used to go around Central Texas preaching and singing at small Pentecostal-type churches.

Later in their marriage she was an Air Force Officer and they were stationed overseas. By then, his emotional distress and self-centeredness were so strong, and he was also unable to reconcile his "husband-is-the-head-of-the-house" ideal with the need to take care of two small children. When the child welfare authorities threatened to take away the kids, my sister sent her husband back to the states, filed for divorce, and flew my father over there to help look after the family until they were transferred back home.

You can understand that, aside from me being gay, I have a personal perspective on evangelists like this. I feel sorry for them, but I also feel anger at the damage they do.

Interestingly enough, my sister is now a Wicca and participates in a coven in Ohio. Her children have been raised to have open and skeptical minds, and my now-adult middle nephew spent a month visiting with my partner and me this summer.

I don't know what the nuns back at Little Flower School would make of all this... :-) But, it's life: Messy. Bruising. Joyous. Tragic. Full of unexpected change and unexpected grace. I take it with an open and compassionate heart, and don't worry about the details anymore.
posted by Robert Angelo at 10:27 AM on November 9, 2006

So, Robert Angelo your sister, she's available?
posted by econous at 10:59 AM on November 9, 2006

econous, no she remarried a guy younger than I am! The god/dess smiled, and yea, she bore a child although well past her 40th year. :-)

That nephew who visited, though, he's a catch...
posted by Robert Angelo at 11:50 AM on November 9, 2006

One more thing: She & hubby just celebrated their wedding anniversary -- on Oct 31.
posted by Robert Angelo at 11:51 AM on November 9, 2006

You know who's real stupid? Christians.
posted by interrobang at 1:44 PM on November 9, 2006

How so?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 3:13 PM on November 9, 2006

interrobang : You know who's real stupid? Christians.

You know which men have poor taste in fuck parners? Faggots.
posted by econous at 3:25 PM on November 9, 2006

You know which men have poor taste in fuck parners? Faggots.

Speaking from experience, it depends on which part you taste.
posted by Robert Angelo at 3:30 PM on November 9, 2006

Wow, now I know you've never read any Richard Rorty peeping_Thomist. You should. One of his general points is that the great (and yes, sometimes problematic) thing about liberal democracy is that it's incredibly messy in practice. And yet, practice can't be separated from theory.

As I've said repeatedly, you have the right to vote and be a Catholic in this country. You'd have neither in many others that don't benefit from a history of evolving liberal democracy.

Sorry it's not as magnificent as the City of God, but that's the point -- governments and/or societies based on theological tenets can serve a ruling elite quite nicely, but dicks over 95% of the population, always (cf. Taliban).
posted by bardic at 3:34 PM on November 9, 2006

I second the Rorty suggestion. Philosophy and Social Hope is an inspiring, incredible read.

(Though I wager peeping_Thomist won't like it. To him who has ears, let him hear.)< ?small>
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:45 PM on November 9, 2006

Yikes. mucked up my closing tag. Admin, hope me!
posted by eustacescrubb at 3:46 PM on November 9, 2006

Robert Angelo explained : Speaking from experience, it depends on which part you taste. It's made of people?

Let me be clear for a moment; grown ups can hold hands, kiss, snog, fall in love with, fuck and marry whomever they choose. Further, I celebrate it. I pity the fool who has bought into an ideology and believes it informs them.
posted by econous at 4:53 PM on November 9, 2006

It's made of people? Not cigarettes?

We are in accord.
posted by Robert Angelo at 4:57 PM on November 9, 2006

I pity the fool who has bought into an ideology and believes it informs them.

*takes econous' bag of bones away*
posted by amberglow at 5:23 PM on November 9, 2006

The only reason my incantation didn't work is that the whole thing was based on an assumption that Mars was in transit. It wasn't Mars but Mercury that was in transit. Sad thing is the sacrifice I made was wasted. I could do another, but think I'd better wait for the ramifications of my error to become clear. I've been pouring over my books all day, and everything should be ok. If anyone felt anything it was probably something I call 'coincidence'. Sad thing is kittens cost a lot of money and so I hate getting it wrong having used one.

Beware amberglow anyone taking my bag of bones would be in for a rather perfect spell of bad luck. Must dash, I feel a spell of cold reading coming on. Ta ta.

Ezekiel connected dem dry bones
I hear the word of the Lord.
posted by econous at 6:15 PM on November 9, 2006

a widdle kitten!?! booo!

(and what? you're Senator Frist?)
posted by amberglow at 6:23 PM on November 9, 2006

kittens cost a lot of money

Easier to use the plush stuffed ones from Wal-Mart.
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:30 PM on November 9, 2006

Substitute evangels for kittens. They work just as well, and are frequently found gathered in local institutions called "churches." Best of all, they're free and even have a delivery service! Just ask one to visit you with advice on becoming born again. If you're lucky, they'll bring a friend and you'll have enough supply to share it with friends!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:45 PM on November 9, 2006

eustacescrubb: "I second the Rorty suggestion. Philosophy and Social Hope is an inspiring, incredible read.

(Though I wager peeping_Thomist won't like it. To him who has ears, let him hear.)"

I remember being impressed the first time I read _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_, but after that I started finding him less interesting, more infuriating. Yes, I've read the standard Rorty books/essay collections, as well as the occasional Rorty article in obscure journals. I've read lots of Rorty over the years, though not in the past ten years or so, but in any case more than I probably can justify. I've come to the conclusion that anything interesting in Rorty (worth my worrying about, anyway) can be found in Davidson, only not tarted up the way Rorty does. (I don't mean that to sound as derisive as it probably does.) He keeps going on about Wittgenstein and Nietzsche and Dewey and so on, and I've come to think those are more fruitful thinkers for me to engage with in the long run.

The phrase "inspiring read" pretty well captures what he's doing. Whether inspiring the troops is OK depends on whether what you're inspiring them to do is rationally defensible. I think if most non-academics who think of themselves as liberals understood what the premier liberal academics really believe, they'd be appalled.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:48 PM on November 9, 2006

Robert Angelo: "I don't know what the nuns back at Little Flower School would make of all this... :-) But, it's life: Messy. Bruising. Joyous. Tragic. Full of unexpected change and unexpected grace. I take it with an open and compassionate heart, and don't worry about the details anymore."

I realize that no one here will believe it, but that's exactly how I think about life. I think about principles and try to apply them to my own life (which includes things like voting against beer and wine sales where I live), but I've gotten much more comfortable over time with how messy life is. I bet the nuns back at Little Flower feel the same way you do.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:56 PM on November 9, 2006

pyramid termite: " ... i've met some fairly interesting priests ...

So have I, many more than you, I'd wager. And they are not typical priests. Parish priests are typically boring and dim-witted. Evangelical preachers are not. In any case, even if priests were typically charismatic and intelligent, the way authority works in Catholic communities still would not depend upon them being so.

i can't imagine how anyone can fail as anything without also failing as a person

I can fail as a convenience store clerk, by giving out wrong change and habitually showing up late, without it in any way affecting my own sense of myself as a success or failure. You see, even though I work in a convenience store, I am really a musician, and this is just my day job.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:09 PM on November 9, 2006

I can fail as a convenience store clerk, by giving out wrong change and habitually showing up late, without it in any way affecting my own sense of myself as a success or failure.

if you're not where you're at, you're nowhere at all ... and i say that as someone who worked for 7 years in a convenience store and was good at it

and i'm really a musician, too

but i guess the concept that people ought to be good at the lives they actually have instead of the lives they want to have doesn't ring a bell with you
posted by pyramid termite at 8:17 PM on November 9, 2006

I'll take you at your word, p_T, if you say so. I'm not here to pick bones with anybody (or toss them, for that matter).

As for the nuns or other Catholic professionally religious women, the ones I recall most fondly were people like Mary E. Hunt and Jeannine Gramick. Years ago, I was the music coordinator for a retreat given by Mary and her partner Dianne. It seems like another lifetime now. I'd say they share the same graceful attitude that we're describing. Common ground -- who would have thought.
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:27 PM on November 9, 2006

pyramid termite: "but i guess the concept that people ought to be good at the lives they actually have instead of the lives they want to have doesn't ring a bell with you"

It certainly rings a bell. Still there are lots of people whose sense of success or failure does not depend on succeeding at this or that social role. And it's easy enough to imagine situations in which it makes sense to reject a role that's been arbitrarily imposed on you. For example, if you're being forced to go to school and don't want to, you can either put up a big fight and end up with a lot of unpleasantness, or else you can feign compliance and sit way in the back of the classroom and catch up on the sleep you lose playing in your rock band at night. I don't see such a person as a failure.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:08 PM on November 9, 2006

Hm. Ted Haggard and the Modern Day Pharisee Christian Church - Would They Crucify Jesus All Over Again?

I think they would.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:48 PM on November 9, 2006

Crazy-ass Christians. Faithful woman dies handling snakes.

Tell me how churches are not cults, please.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:33 PM on November 9, 2006

This thread is a litmus test?
posted by Dreamghost at 1:16 AM on November 10, 2006

This thread is a litmus test?

Metafilter is apparantly alkaline! Or, at least, pretty basic.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:03 AM on November 10, 2006

I think if most non-academics who think of themselves as liberals understood what the premier liberal academics really believe, they'd be appalled.

Oh, but come on.

Really, you could say that about any field that isn't in the hard sciences. The whole reason I didn't get a PhD was because of how irritating graduate school was. The langauge game of theory is fun, but all those academics take it so seriously, like deconstructing Shakespeare is actually going to do anything about recaism/sexism etc. Academics are, in general, concerned with subject matter that isn't terribly practical, and there's no such animal as a completely internally consistent philosophy, so the fact that a lot of radicals and wackos set the agenda for academic discourse doesn't really matter all that much.

I find Rorty's arguments compelling still, (more compelling than yours, p_T - sorry) though I would recommend Philosophy and Social Hope to the layperson over Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature or anything by Davidson just because the langauge is pretty dense in Rorty's older stuff and in Davidson.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:26 AM on November 10, 2006

p_t: I think about principles and try to apply them to my own life (which includes things like voting against beer and wine sales where I live)

Boy, you don't like people to have any fun if you can't either, huh?

And the problem with wine is that . . . ? Christ was a wine buff, was he not? I seem to recall some magic he worked with the Evian supply at some bread and sushi joint.

Speaking of joints, I suppose you thinking smoking g_d's creation is wrong? How is that different from eating it? Or drinking it?

Late reply to five_fresh_fish: personal experience, while a valuable guide to hypothesis formation, is insufficient as evidence for a strong categorical claim about a genus-wide behavioral phenomenon. If you'd like, I can point you in the direction of the relevant primatological literature, including a raft of studies of human sexuality that make it about as likely that P-t is telling the truth about his habits as that any member of Metafilter has gone without inserting a finger in his/her nose in 20 years. Culture is powerful stuff, and shame a significant motivator of human behavior. But I repeat that the ability of culture to override base instinctual drives that carry only positive consequences otherwise depends on the force of the negative consequences risked, at best. Or it depends on a cognitive malfunction that most of us would call "mental illness." I think a lot of religious fervor is a form of mental illness, personally. Or an expression of it. But I don't have the data to back up the hunch.

In the end, s/he with the most grandkids wins the game. How you get there is a matter of merely human concern.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:37 AM on November 10, 2006

An afterthought:

p_: "I think about principles and try to apply them to my own life"

The gaping illogic, which I meant to point out above, is breathtaking. Applying principles to your own life means trying to force others to live by them using the power of the secular state.

Adorable, you Christians.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:43 AM on November 10, 2006

This is a nice informational addendum as well:
"Jesus Camp" to Shut Down. (Seattle Times)
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:53 AM on November 10, 2006

Well, here's one way to resolve the battle of dueling Bible passages we had talked about earlier, maybe around 1100 comments

THE NETHERLANDS — A new Bible translation produced in Holland that aims to be more attractive and market-oriented is causing controversy after it cut out difficult parts surrounding economic justice, possessions and money.
...
Chairman W. R De Rijke said the foundation has reacted to a growing wish of many churches to be market-oriented and more attractive.

"Jesus was very inspiring for our inner health, but we don't need to take his naïve remarks about money seriously. He didn't study economics, obviously," he said.

De Rijke said no serious Christian takes these texts literally.

"What if all Christians stopped being anxious, for example, and started expecting everything from God? Or gave their possessions to the poor, for that matter. Our economy would be lost. The truth is quite the contrary: a strong economy and a healthy work ethic is a gift from God."

posted by ibmcginty at 9:08 AM on November 10, 2006

"Jesus was very inspiring for our inner health, but we don't need to take his naïve remarks about money seriously. He didn't study economics, obviously," he said.

De Rijke said no serious Christian takes these texts literally.

"What if all Christians stopped being anxious, for example, and started expecting everything from God? Or gave their possessions to the poor, for that matter. Our economy would be lost. The truth is quite the contrary: a strong economy and a healthy work ethic is a gift from God."

Either a) Jesus is god/the son of god and you have to believe everything he says or b) he is not divine and why bother caring about the New Testament at all then?

How can De Rijke tie his fucking shoes in the morning with that kind of warped brain?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:14 AM on November 10, 2006

eustacescrubb: "I rejected conservatism a long time ago because while conservative ideas often have a nice, satisfying symmetry to them, they usually fail when put into practice, as is pretty evident by looking the Rev. Haggard or the history of the Catholic Church in general."

Your claim that evangelicals are putting conservative ideas into practice is misguided. Evangelicalism is a 19th-20th century American phenomenon, and utterly modern. Hell, Haggard talked about wanting to promote a "free market" of spirituality. That makes him a classical liberal. The complaints of most people in this thread against evangelicals are disagreements about how to work out the details of a liberalism you all share with those very same evangelicals. Your disagreements with Ted Haggard are much less significant than your deeper agreements with him. When you say you have rejected "conservatism," I interpret that as you saying you have rejected a particular variant of liberalism due to a doctrinal dispute over in-house pieties. Most contributors "assume" (to use your word) liberalism to such an extent that they cannot even acknowledge the existence of alternatives to liberalism.

I am troubled by your apparent assumption that "the" "Catholic Church" names one entity with a single history that can be told "in general", as opposed to naming a communion of local churches spread throughout space and time and having many complicated and wildly different histories. (I realize that you probably have more subtle things to say about this point, but I'm troubled at how liberalism has influenced your habits of mind, even though you are able to a certain extent to rise above them.)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:27 AM on November 10, 2006

Does it need to be pointed out that De Rijke embraces liberalism?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:29 AM on November 10, 2006

Does it need to be pointed out that De Rijke embraces liberalism?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:29 AM PST on November 10

Yes, because "fuck the poor" is such a common liberal attitude.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:35 AM on November 10, 2006

OC, you do realize that free marketeers are liberals, right?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:49 AM on November 10, 2006

p_T, you're using a definition of "liberal" that, while technically correct, is not the one used by the participants of this particualr community. This causes a lot of confusion.

I'm well aware that on a larger level, Republican and Democrats are right and left-leaning liberals, but the word has two meanings, and you're using the less-popular meaning, even though it's the original meaning.

I'm curious to know what you see yourself as being, if not also a liberal in the sense you've been using the word. Are you a medeivalist? Anti-enlightenment-ist?
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:54 AM on November 10, 2006

eustacescrubb: "I'm well aware that on a larger level, Republican and Democrats are right and left-leaning liberals, but the word has two meanings, and you're using the less-popular meaning, even though it's the original meaning. "

Would you agree that one effect of always assuming liberalism is to allow people to ignore the fact that debates between conservative liberals and liberal liberals and radical liberals are always and only debates between liberals? In other words, would you agree that always assuming liberalism prevents reflection upon the deepest shared commitments of liberals, since they spend all their time fighting life or death battles against people who share their own deepest commitments? Many people go through conversions from one version of liberalism to another, imagining that this is a titanic shift between polar opposites that define the range of possible views. Meanwhile, non-liberals are derided as "irrational" or, as by Rorty, "unintelligible".

When people go through their whole lives never wondering whether their deepest allegiances are reasonable, but instead are concerned only to defeat (or, where that is impossible, to heap abuse upon) their in-house opponents, isn't it true that they eventually descend into an unreflectiveness that really is disgraceful? When whole communities do this, is it not even more disgraceful?

"I'm curious to know what you see yourself as being, if not also a liberal in the sense you've been using the word. Are you a medeivalist? Anti-enlightenment-ist?"

I'm no expert, but the label philosophical communitarianism sounds about right to me.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:40 AM on November 10, 2006

p_T,

Would you agree that one effect of always assuming liberalism is to allow people to ignore the fact that debates between conservative liberals and liberal liberals and radical liberals are always and only debates between liberals? In other words, would you agree that always assuming liberalism prevents reflection upon the deepest shared commitments of liberals, since they spend all their time fighting life or death battles against people who share their own deepest commitments? Many people go through conversions from one version of liberalism to another, imagining that this is a titanic shift between polar opposites that define the range of possible views. Meanwhile, non-liberals are derided as "irrational" or, as by Rorty, "unintelligible".

Well, you seem to just be describing what the cult-studs call a "discourse community." And yes, there is a great danger in a community (esp. one devoted, on the surface, to tolerance and freedom of speech) relegating views from outside the community as irrational or insane. But I don't think human society is possible without that phenomenon. People have to communicate, and communication requires a set of shared assumptions. If you want people to change assumptions, you're asking for a paradigm shift of an incredible magnitude -- a conversion experience, if you will, and you can't manufacture those. you can, I think, teach people to challenge their preconceptions, but, speaking as a former college-level English instructor, that's diffiuclt work and often makes adversaries of one's students.

As far as communitarianism goes, its critques of liberalism (in the larger sense) are spot-on, and I find I agree with some of its claims, but both you and I still operate in the liberal society we have and while communitarianism offers an alternative the atomism of liberalism (damn; too many isms) I fear it doesn't offer the protection of individual liberties that liberal societies do, and that's major problem. Communitarianism, unchecked by individual liberties, would be just as tyrannical as free market capitalism, maybe more. Practicallyt speaking, some merger of the two, as one finds in the essays of Wendell Berry, is more practical a goal.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:13 PM on November 10, 2006

RADAR Magazine's interview with the Mike Jones, "angry hustler."
posted by ericb at 1:51 PM on November 10, 2006

As far as communitarianism goes, its critques of liberalism (in the larger sense) are spot-on

I realized I wasn't specific enough here -- what I think is "spot on" is the critique that liberalism's focus on individual liberties has had the negative side-effect of promoting extreme individualism, which allows the agents of free market capitalism to exploit citizens to a frightening degree.
However, my suspicion is that this stems less from the fact of individual liberties themselves, and more from the behavior of coporations, who benefit by encouraging individualism.
In other words, where communitarianism gets all preachy about morals and family values and the like, I think that's bad and it gets too much like facsism (without the state-woship, of course, but "community" just takes the place of the state as the idol du jour).
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:06 PM on November 10, 2006

I am troubled by your apparent assumption that "the" "Catholic Church" names one entity with a single history that can be told "in general", as opposed to naming a communion of local churches spread throughout space and time and having many complicated and wildly different histories.

So why keep up the charade of staying aligned with a religious institution that states quite clearly that 1) the Pope speaks for God and 2) the Vatican trumps any and all opposition at the lower levels.

I mean, I've acknowledged that within the general mysogyny, sexual hypocrisy, and and actual sexual abuse that exists within the Catholic church, there are and have been progressive moments, attempts to reform, etc. And on all occasions, the Papacy has pretty much smacked them down.

But after, what, 17 centuries, when don't you just think that it would be best to get the heck out of there? But then again, I'm the type of guy who doesn't want to belong to a community that wouldn't have me in the first place.
posted by bardic at 3:17 PM on November 10, 2006

This thread has long passed my comments and the reply to them, so I will not extend that conversation unduly anymore. I just wanted to post one reply to p_t's sex/golf analogy:

If a group of people take their clubs and balls and start having a grand old time whacking them around with no thought to scoring, they are not playing golf wrong. They have started a new game. And have done nothing wrong by doing so.

The same applies to genitals.

If we are not playing to score, then scoring is not our purpose. Arguing that it should be our purpose, because you think golf/procreative sex is a "better" game than the one the we are playing, does not change the fact that it is not. Nor does it make what we are doing unnatural (a word I have always thought had no meaning, at least in this context - how can anything that occurs in nature by unnatural?)

I wish you every joy of your game, but I am quite content with mine.
posted by kyrademon at 4:03 PM on November 10, 2006

eustacescrubb: "you can, I think, teach people to challenge their preconceptions, but, speaking as a former college-level English instructor, that's diffiuclt work and often makes adversaries of one's students."

I think that's exactly the wrong way to put it. Individuals don't need to learn how to "challenge their preconceptions", as if that were any kind of significant achievement. Absolutely anyone can "challenge their preconceptions" trivially easily, simply by asking questions like "what if I hadn't been born a (Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc...)?" That sort of thing is a recipe for creating resourceless, dislocated selves, which is what college-level English instructors excel at producing. Thank God some students have the good sense to resist such vexatious meddling. (This isn't directed at you, just at anyone who would ask students a question like "what if you hadn't been born an X?"--as though that question had any cognitive content at all.)

Individuals do not need to be "taught" how to "challenge" preconceptions. They need to be given _resources_ for thinking about their lives in the terms internal to their own traditions, and they need to be given resources for learning what MacIntyre calls "second first languages". Communities that do not have internal resources for helping individuals learn second first languages are communities that cannot ever achieve rational justification for their claims. (Do you know the chapter on "the rationality of traditions" in MacIntyre's _Whose Justice? Which Rationality?_.) Liberalism renounces the need for such internal resources, and instead libels as "unintelligible" what are obviously intelligible traditions.

"while communitarianism offers an alternative the atomism of liberalism (damn; too many isms) I fear it doesn't offer the protection of individual liberties that liberal societies do, and that's major problem. Communitarianism, unchecked by individual liberties, would be just as tyrannical as free market capitalism, maybe more."

Resources for addressing such concerns have to be developed internally. There's no standpoint outside of traditions from which to articulate the claim you seem to want to make.

"where communitarianism gets all preachy about morals and family values and the like, I think that's bad and it gets too much like facsism (without the state-worship, of course, but "community" just takes the place of the state as the idol du jour)."

I agree with you. Recognizing this danger is compatible with voting to restrict beer and wine sales and criminalize sodomy.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:57 PM on November 10, 2006

bardic: "why keep up the charade of staying aligned with a religious institution that states quite clearly that 1) the Pope speaks for God and 2) the Vatican trumps any and all opposition at the lower levels."

If you could show me where to look to find out more about Catholic teaching regarding these two amazing claims, I'll try to check into it and respond to you after I've better informed myself about Catholic doctrine.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:04 PM on November 10, 2006

kyrademon: "If a group of people take their clubs and balls and start having a grand old time whacking them around with no thought to scoring, they are not playing golf wrong. They have started a new game. And have done nothing wrong by doing so."

Indeed.

"The same applies to genitals."

Not so. Genitals are not artifacts with a purpose imposed upon them by human artifice.

Everything turns on what the marital act causally tends toward: the procreation of new human life, a being with dignity.

"If we are not playing to score, then scoring is not our purpose."

That is, the desire to score is not your motivation. But the desire to procreate is not typically my motivation for performing the marital act, either. So what?

In seeking whatever you are seeking in performing same-sex genital acts, you nonethless intend an act that is non-accidentally ordered toward procreation. This non-accidental ordering is not like the ordering of golf clubs toward scoring, which is not due to the intrinsic nature of anything, but only to our art.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:16 PM on November 10, 2006

Individuals do not need to be "taught" how to "challenge" preconceptions.

in which case, they will probably not challenge them at all ... fine, if their preconceptions work, but if they don't ...

They need to be given _resources_ for thinking about their lives in the terms internal to their own traditions,

in other words, they need to be given limits as to what is intellectually proper for them to think about

Liberalism renounces the need for such internal resources, and instead libels as "unintelligible" what are obviously intelligible traditions.

sharia law is an intelligible tradition ... nazism, if it had lasted long enough, would have been an intelligible tradition ... the pagan worldview that christianity replaced was an intelligible tradition

intelligibility is not enough ... one must somehow be able to justify one's tradition without harping on the preconceptions that "make it so" ... if one is unable to explain it to "the man from mars", it may well be that it is inexplicable

There's no standpoint outside of traditions from which to articulate the claim you seem to want to make.

in other words, there's no way st paul could have critiqued paganism because he was standing outside of their tradition

you seriously can't believe that

"where communitarianism gets all preachy about morals and family values and the like, I think that's bad and it gets too much like facsism (without the state-worship, of course, but "community" just takes the place of the state as the idol du jour)."

I agree with you. Recognizing this danger is compatible with voting to restrict beer and wine sales and criminalize sodomy.

except that you aren't really interested in what ALL of a community wants, but what your self-defined elite wants ... your communitarianism is not, and probably could not be based upon consensus ... instead it is based upon either what a plain majority demands, or a elect elite proclaims, without any reference to what the minority (or commonality) of beer-guzzling sodomites may feel is their right to do

in short, your communitarianism does not represent the community, but a faction of the community, and therefore has no legitimate claim to represent the community as a whole
posted by pyramid termite at 6:57 PM on November 10, 2006

p_T, here's the complete text of Vatican II.
posted by bardic at 7:33 PM on November 10, 2006

1500 comments!
posted by mattbucher at 7:43 PM on November 10, 2006

As for communitarianism, yeah, sounds a lot like a society based on the notion that some beliefs are more equal than others. Which is fine within the context of liberal democracy -- competing interests and so forth aren't a problem per se, but allow for people to disagree on various issues, while having some consensus on the really important issues -- all people should have the right to vote, all that good stuff in the Bill of Rights, people should worship whatever idol or demiurge they choose, etc.

It's funny to me that you don't seem to realize, as others have mentioned, that communitarianism by its very definition couldn't exist without the benefits granted by liberal democracy. More power to you though.
posted by bardic at 7:48 PM on November 10, 2006

Good points, pyramid termite.

Also:

It's funny to me that you don't seem to realize, as others have mentioned, that communitarianism by its very definition couldn't exist without the benefits granted by liberal democracy

Indeed.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:50 PM on November 10, 2006

bardic: "p_T, here's the complete text of Vatican II."

Right, because everyone associates the triumph of neo-ultramontanist curialism with the documents of Vatican freaking II! I apologize for being so blunt, but you obviously do not have a clue what you are talking about.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:01 PM on November 10, 2006

bardic: "As for communitarianism, yeah, sounds a lot like a society based on the notion that some beliefs are more equal than others."

I guess you missed the part where eustacescrubb conceded that every society is based upon that notion.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:04 PM on November 10, 2006

I shouldn't judge the Catholic church by statements made by the Catholic church?
posted by bardic at 8:05 PM on November 10, 2006

Medieval societies were based on the tenets of liberal democracy?
posted by bardic at 8:07 PM on November 10, 2006

bardic: "communitarianism by its very definition couldn't exist without the benefits granted by liberal democracy."

Since its "very definition" does not mention liberalism, I'd like to see you trace out for me how you get from the very definition of communitarianism to the conclusion that the existence of communitarianism (of which liberalism is a pathetically unreflective variant) depends upon the benefits of liberalism.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:08 PM on November 10, 2006

bardic: "I shouldn't judge the Catholic church by statements made by the Catholic church?"

Since such statements only make sense in relation to the tradition in which they are embedded, and since you seem to know fuck-all about the Catholic tradition, I vote yes, you are not in a position to make judgments about "the" "Catholic church".

I studied Rawls (more than you), Rorty (more than you), Davidson (more than you), Mill (more than you), and plenty of other prominent liberals, and taught myself how to think the way liberals think (as painful and soul-numbing as that is--I don't know how you guys can stand it) before I ever made any public posts about liberalism. Your linking to the documents of Vatican II to support a claim about neo-ultramontanist curialism shows that you do not know enough about the Catholic tradition to be posting in a public forum about it. You apparently think the way to engage alien communities is to cherry-pick statements from their documents that seem to you absurd, and scoff at them. It's not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:19 PM on November 10, 2006

Hmm, that didn't come out right. Again, it's disinegenuous of you to need a walk through civics class again, but here's a nutshell version -- liberal democracy begins from the proposition that people will always argue for things based on brute self-interest. Liberal democracy doesn't set out to erase brute self-interest, but rather to curb it. It's always there, of course, but instead of cutting each others throats over an issue, we can vote according to our self-interest instead of killing one another.

Again, you hold liberal democracy to a standard of perfection that its philosophical proponents going back to Locke, Rousseau and Mill never did. Liberal democracy is, triumphantly, based on our very imperfections and limitations and general inability to agree on everything all the time. To put it more bluntly (and I wish I could find the Irving Kristol article that spelled this out for me pretty well a while back), since we're always going to fight about things, let's make sure it's the littler ones rather than the bigger ones (actually, many of the Federalist Papers get into this as well).

And here you could get all Allan Bloom on me and decry the inability of decadent liberalism to supply or foster virtue. And I'd again direct you to Richard Rorty, especially his most recent work.
posted by bardic at 8:19 PM on November 10, 2006

p_t: Recognizing this danger is compatible with voting to restrict beer and wine sales and criminalize sodomy.

Who put you in charge, or your church? Keep your archaic "morals" out of my very functional community, where we don't care who marries whom or what you drink with dinner, please. Or keep them to yourself.

Really, the philosophical bullshit is all smokescreen. You want power, like all religious zealots.

South Park was excellent tonight. Mocked the crucifixion, no less. And the hypocrisy of Christians.

And Bill Maher to drive it home. Yeah, baby.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:31 PM on November 10, 2006

pyramid termite: "intelligibility is not enough ... one must somehow be able to justify one's tradition without harping on the preconceptions that "make it so" ... if one is unable to explain it to "the man from mars", it may well be that it is inexplicable

What you have said here is a non-sequitur. If liberalism could make good on the claim to be able to justify itself in terms of the requirements of minimal rational agency (which is what you are talking about, the "man from mars" is a stand-in for the minimally rational agent), then it would already be agreed upon exactly which argument would allow the "man from mars" to understand and affirm liberalism. There is no such argument. The best and brightest liberal theorists who have tried to construct such an argument have uniformly abandoned the quest. If you think about it for a moment you can see why: if the argument for liberalism is supposed to be compelling to all minimally rational agents, it will have to be a pretty fucking simple argument. So simple that it is absurd to think that the best and brightest would need centuries to discover it. (cf Hume on causality.)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:32 PM on November 10, 2006

Since such statements only make sense in relation to the tradition in which they are embedded, and since you seem to know fuck-all about the Catholic tradition, I vote yes, you are not in a position to make judgments about "the" "Catholic church".

Wow. Ya know, there are other options to Catholicism if it bothers you that much. I don't know "fuck all" about Catholic tradition? I'm presenting traditional views (Pope speaks for god, Vatican is the supreme authority over all individual churches and parishes) that 95% of Catholics would agree with. (And how did I "cherry-pick" Vatican II? I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing, but the parts about how everything you're claiming about Catholic tradition go against, ahem, Catholic tradition? Those are pretty easy to find. Kind of sorry it so obviously pisses you off.)

I studied Rawls (more than you), Rorty (more than you), Davidson (more than you), Mill (more than you),

Well I'm sure we're not going to impress anyone here, but I really disagree. And I happened to study all of them within a fairly conservative poly sci. department (Straussian, to be exact), so don't think there wasn't plenty of criticism presented for each of them. When Rorty came to my college to speak, many poly sci professors were conscpicuously absent (a real dick move on their part). So I was quite happy when I got the chance to study under Rorty in grad. school. Nice guy. His wife is nice too. Davidson I've read less of, but he isn't the first name that comes to mind when I think of late 20th century thoughts about the success of liberal democracy (although we need to drag Habermas into this as well if we're ever going to get to 2,000).

So we're really going around the dell here. In all sincerity, you seem to have some deep misgivings about your own Catholicism. I don't blame you. But realize how weird you sound not breaking with a 17-century long tradition that would hold you in utter contempt for heresy.

And I'm all for heresy. But why bother sticking in a camp that you obviously have so many disagreements and qualms with?
posted by bardic at 8:36 PM on November 10, 2006

if the argument for liberalism is supposed to be compelling to all minimally rational agents, it will have to be a pretty fucking simple argument. So simple that it is absurd to think that the best and brightest would need centuries to discover it. (cf Hume on causality.)

Ridiculous. The value of a philosophical notion isn't how well it serves us in practice, nor even its logical consistency, but how quickly humans arrive at it?

So I guess I wasn't being hyperbolic when I called you a neanderthal peeping_Thomist, because really, you must have taken that as a compliment. Because it's the paleolithic era or bust for you and your dry county and your wish to have the government go into the bedrooms of consenting adults to tell them who they can sleep with?

So bizarre. A religion isn't based on what its leaders say it is, and a philosophy is only worthwhile if stupid people can understand it. Kind of explains a lot actually.
posted by bardic at 8:52 PM on November 10, 2006

this is too funny: ... Sheldon disclosed that he and “a lot” of others knew about Haggard’s homosexuality for awhile … but we weren’t sure just how to deal with it.” ...
posted by amberglow at 9:52 PM on November 10, 2006

If you think about it for a moment you can see why: if the argument for liberalism is supposed to be compelling to all minimally rational agents, it will have to be a pretty fucking simple argument.

"so far, the alternatives have turned out to be worse"

simple enough for you? ... in any case, i'm beginning to wonder if this minimally rational agent, in the way you seem to embody it, might be better called a "most willfully ignorant agent" or a "least engaging agent of debate" ... you blatantly claim that liberalism makes no sense to a "minimally rational agent" because the argument would be "too simple" to have continued to be undiscovered for centuries ... i suspect the truth is that no argument has been found for it that is immune to sophistry or a willingness to ignore actual results

in any case, the whole problem with your reply here is that you've utterly failed to address the question of how community is defined in the concept of communitarianism, who gets to define it and by how broad of a consensus ... instead, you continue to attack liberalism with what would be straw man attacks, if only they weren't so vague and nebulous, while failing to adequately define and defend your alternative ... (you're doing the same thing with catholicism, telling people that "it's not x", while declining to give a halfway precise definition of what you think it is)

in short, you are full of reasons why we are wrong, but short on reasons why you are right ... you're more than ready to deconstruct and destroy other people's arguments but unwilling to come up with any of your own that involve anything more than ex cathedra pronouncements and vague references to vague communities

you're not engaging us, you're evading us
posted by pyramid termite at 4:33 AM on November 11, 2006

you're not engaging us, you're evading us

Agreed. You have a bad bhabit, p_T, of responding to the least important point made in posts, and abandoning the meat of your interlocuters' arguments for semantic ones, or side-issues.

And Catholicism, as you describie it to us, doesn't meet the criteria you demand liberalism meet.

bardic -- you got to study uder Rorty? </jealous>
posted by eustacescrubb at 5:51 AM on November 11, 2006

although we need to drag Habermas into this as well if we're ever going to get to 2,000

Oooh, let's! p_t's "I always tell the truth" would make much more sense in that context.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:26 AM on November 11, 2006

bardic: "realize how weird you sound not breaking with a 17-century long tradition that would hold you in utter contempt for heresy."

My views about the relationship between reason and tradition are not heretical; they also are not yet "the" Catholic answers to such questions. There is at this point legitimate pluralism within the Catholic tradition about such matters. Reasonable Catholics go back and forth on these things. That's what traditions do: they argue about things. MacIntyre defines a tradition as an "argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics and enemies external to the tradition who reject all or at least key parts of those fundamental agreements, and those internal, interpretative debates through which the meaning and rationale of the fundamental agreements come to be expressed and by whose progress a tradition is constituted." I agree with that definition, and think you have mistaken an internal, interpretive debate within the Catholic tradition for an external conflict between Catholics and what you mistakenly think of as heretics. What makes it possible for you to be thus confused is your ignorance of details of the Catholic tradition itself.

For example, the strongest influence on my thinking about this stuff is Newman, who while he was alive was regarded as heretical by many churchmen. Just last month it was announced that Newman's cause for beatification is moving forward after decades of languishing. That's pretty good evidence that his views were not heretical.

bardic: "The value of a philosophical notion isn't how well it serves us in practice, nor even its logical consistency, but how quickly humans arrive at it?"

That's not what I think, not at all. But that is because I am part of a tradition that has preserved what is today politely referred to as the "sapiential dimension" of philosophy. In contrast, the traditional strategies for defending liberalism required precisely that there be an argument that would be compelling to all minimally rational agents, the "man from mars". Those strategies failed. I do not think well-informed people now disagree about whether these strategies failed.

pyramid termite: ""so far, the alternatives have turned out to be worse" simple enough for you?"

Not by a long shot. Worse in what way? Presumably you mean worse according to some measure that all minimally rational agents find compelling, no? (Because otherwise you would be saying only that the alternatives are worse according to liberal standards of rationality, which is true by definition.) Good luck spelling out the details of that argument. If you succeed, you'll have done what no liberal theorist has yet succeeded in doing.

"i suspect the truth is that no argument has been found for it that is immune to sophistry or a willingness to ignore actual results"

Apparently you are the type who thinks pounding the table and harrumphing constitutes an argument. When dogmatists can't respond to their critics, they sometimes get frustrated and resort to calling them stupid or bad-willed. You seem to me to be a frustrated dogmatic liberal.

"you are full of reasons why we are wrong, but short on reasons why you are right [...] you're not engaging us, you're evading us"

That's true in a sense, and I can see why you think this is a legitimate criticism. Nonetheless, Metafilter is not an appropriate forum for presenting the truth claims of the Catholic tradition. The posting format is incompatible with presenting the tradition in its integral form. Surely it cannot be a requirement of rationality that anything that cannot be persuasively presented on metafilter is not rationally justifiable.

eustacescrubb: "You have a bad bhabit, p_T, of responding to the least important point made in posts, and abandoning the meat of your interlocuters' arguments for semantic ones, or side-issues."

Relative importance is not an intrinsic quality of the statements in a large body of knowledge. (Kuhn made this point almost 50 years ago.) When conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals argue amongst themselves, they typically think the most important things they talk about have to do with the differences between them, when clearly it is what they have in common that is most important to someone who stands outside liberalism. So long as mefi remains open to non-liberals, you'll have to deal with people responding to what you take to be the least important points of your posts.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:50 AM on November 11, 2006

Not by a long shot. Worse in what way?

quality of life ... advancement of technology ... freedom and satisfaction of not just the individual, but of the majority ... murderousness, serfdom and slavery

it's all recorded in history, which is the only record we have of what works well and what doesn't ... the fact remains that societies that have practiced liberalism are better ones to live in than those that didn't

If you succeed, you'll have done what no liberal theorist has yet succeeded in doing.


theorists take a back seat to those who actually DO things ... hth

Apparently you are the type who thinks pounding the table and harrumphing constitutes an argument.

apparently you would rather indulge in rhetoric than actually make (or refute) an argument ... you've YET to address my objections to communitarianism ... in fact, as a general rule, when i or someone else has made an objection or asked a question, you ignore it

you're not engaging us, you're evading us

That's true in a sense, and I can see why you think this is a legitimate criticism. Nonetheless, Metafilter is not an appropriate forum for presenting the truth claims of the Catholic tradition.

it is also not an appropriate forum for making broad, controversial statements that one refuses to explain or defend ... you will be called on it and have been called on it

i'm forced to conclude that you are either unwilling or UNABLE to debate your positions in any forum ...

prove me wrong ...

but you won't do it with twaddle such as this

Relative importance is not an intrinsic quality of the statements in a large body of knowledge.

irrelevant ... we are inspecting argument and opinion, not knowledge

(Kuhn made this point almost 50 years ago.)

fallacy ... appeal to authority, gratitious name-dropping and inane

When conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals argue amongst themselves, they typically think the most important things they talk about have to do with the differences between them, when clearly it is what they have in common that is most important to someone who stands outside liberalism.

vague generalities that when examined turn out to be content-free and unfalsifiable, not to mention irrelevant to the specifics some of us have attempted to debate with you ... SAY something, will you?

So long as mefi remains open to non-liberals, you'll have to deal with people responding to what you take to be the least important points of your posts.

actually we don't have to do shit but die ... we don't have to post here, we don't have to debate here, we don't have to read your posts or reply to them

you have shown remarkable restraint for 20 years with the issue of physical masturbation ... if only you would demonstrate a similar discipline in online mental masturbation

again ... do you actually have something to SAY?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:43 AM on November 11, 2006

I could tell from the beginning you were a Newman-nite, p_T (you share his propensity for vacuous pomposity, although not his gift for lyric prosody).

I also note — with uncharitable satisfaction — that Cardinal John Henry Newman was gay*, and indeed lays together still with his companion, Fr. St. John, in the same grave at Rednal, Midlands.

*Certainly homosexually identified, if purportedly celibate.
posted by Haruspex at 11:28 AM on November 11, 2006

Haruspex: "Cardinal John Henry Newman was gay*, and indeed lays together still with his companion, Fr. St. John, in the same grave at Rednal, Midlands.

*Certainly homosexually identified, if purportedly celibate."

That's almost certainly right. But why take uncharitable satisfaction in it? Why not charitable satisfaction? Homosexuals have always made disproportionately great contributions to culture. Did you think I was unlikely to acknowledge that? I don't have any problem affirming that the strongest influence on my thoughts about reason and tradition was a homosexual, and I'm not particularly interested in the details of his struggles to live the virtue of holy purity.

I agree that I lack Newman's literary gifts (or any literary gifts, really), but I reject your diagnosis of "vacuous pomposity," both for Newman and for myself.

By the way, you're misusing the title Cardinal. It should either be "John Henry Cardinal Newman" or "His Eminence, Cardinal John Henry Newman," but never "Cardinal John Henry Newman".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:59 AM on November 11, 2006

Yah, that was admittedly petty of me. Mea culpa and so forth. I was just wholly bemused at the (slender, contentious) tie back to this thread's origin, as t'were.

Make no claims to knowledge of Catholic church nomenclature, and so I appreciate the link.

But I utterly reject your rejection, p_T. As pointed out earlier, yours is a semiotics of endlessly displaced authority, and altho' he sure could write purty, Newman ultimately offers little more than a Petrine-flavored Paterism. So vacuously self-deluding it remains. I must say, p_T, I've yet to encounter anyone on MetaFilter as intellectually dishonest as you, but I grant points for persistence.

As it happens, I prefer my Thomas' doubting, not peeping.
posted by Haruspex at 12:22 PM on November 11, 2006

pyramid termite: "the fact remains that societies that have practiced liberalism are better ones to live in than those that didn't"

That's not a fact, if by using "fact" you meant to contrast "facts" and "values". And if you didn't, please say more about what you think a "fact" is.

theorists take a back seat to those who actually DO things

I'm sure that works great as a pick-up line in bars. Unfortunately, one thing any tradition that deserves the allegiance of decent people needs to be able to "DO" is display its rational superiority to rival traditions. Liberalism has been a dismal failure in that regard.

"i'm forced to conclude that you are either unwilling or UNABLE to debate your positions in any forum ...prove me wrong ..."

No problem: I said that mefi is not an appropriate forum for presenting the bona fides of the Catholic tradition. From this you claim to be "forced to conclude" that I am "either unwilling or UNABLE to debate your positions in any forum". That is an obvious non sequitur, as there are many forums other than mefi. Hence you are not "forced to conclude" any such thing. Hence I have proved you wrong.

"Relative importance is not an intrinsic quality of the statements in a large body of knowledge. irrelevant ... we are inspecting argument and opinion, not knowledge"

The way Kuhn uses the word "knowledge" fits what I'm talking about.

"(Kuhn made this point almost 50 years ago.) fallacy ... appeal to authority, gratitious name-dropping and inane"

It's not an appeal to authority, it's a form of compression. Kuhn wrote a couple of books and several influential articles making this point. My reference to Kuhn gives people who have read him a point of reference to understand what I'm trying to say. Otherwise I'd be trying to write a treatise to put across an idea just to respond to a single sentence. It is sad that you see that as an appeal to authority. I was saying: "here's what I'm talking about; if you're interested in finding out more about this sort of claim, here's where to look." Sheesh.

"When conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals argue amongst themselves, they typically think the most important things they talk about have to do with the differences between them, when clearly it is what they have in common that is most important to someone who stands outside liberalism. vague generalities that when examined turn out to be content-free and unfalsifiable, not to mention irrelevant to the specifics some of us have attempted to debate with you ... SAY something, will you?"

OK: you people should be ashamed of yourselves for abusing konolia.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:30 PM on November 11, 2006

Haruspex: "Yah, that was admittedly petty of me."

I appreciate you bringing up Newman's almost-certain homosexuality. I can't imagine him submitting to the indignity of something like "reparative" therapy.

"vacuously self-deluding it remains.

You made a reference to Paterism, which I had to look up. From reading about it, I infer that you are primarily interested in Newman from a literary standpoint. I have to admit that it's his contributions to philosophy I'm interested in. I don't know nearly as much about literature as I should.

"I must say, p_T, I've yet to encounter anyone on MetaFilter as intellectually dishonest as you"

I'm not sure what that means. I've been accused of being intellectually dishonest before, and not just in this forum. I really don't understand the charge. Is there something you think I say I believe that I don't really believe? Maybe I just don't understand what the phrase "intellectually dishonest" means. I'm not bluffing here: I really don't understand what the phrase means to convey.

"As it happens, I prefer my Thomas' doubting, not peeping."

Perhaps you don't yet appreciate the high-wire act people like MacIntyre and Newman are trying to pull off. They've given up the false comforts of Aristotelian "episteme," and have committed themselves to taking seriously the philosophical problem of historical consciousness. The possibility of skepticism thus becomes a permanent feature of philosophical inquiry, to be held at bay only for the moment, and only by continuing to make progress in dealing with the problems internal to one's tradition while putting that tradition to the test against its rivals. Once you realize how thin is the ice on which they are skating when they describe the interplay between reason and faith, it's really quite breathtaking. You can see why people thought Newman was a heretic. I definitely see myself as a peeping Thomist for whom doubt is a permanent possibility.

Maybe you meant to say that you prefer your Thomases to be unbelievers?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:13 PM on November 11, 2006

Ok, Thom, since you will leave no stone unturned to get to the very, very root of all of our assumptions to convince us of your truth, I'd like to challenge one of your assumptions that I haven't seen you justify.

Answer me this: why does human life have dignity attatched to it?

I don't mean that in a cynical way. And I know you could give me a religious reason, but you've seemed pretty committed to keeping your arguments on non-theistic turf, so I hope you will try to do so here as well.

From an objective viewpoint, we are bundles of hydrocarbon molocules, guided by electrical signals, largely (if not wholly) functions of our environments and surrounding stimuli, glued to a spinning rock by gravity, going around a sun like billions of others, in a random galaxy in a seemingly infinite universe. If you zoom out far enough, we disappear. Where's the dignity in that?

I know where it is. I think most of us do.

It's in our minds. Dignity is a gift that we give to each other, not something handed down to us automatically from on high. It's a human construct, which doesn't make it any less beneficial, desireable to foster, or important to our survival, but does make it a flimsy basis for an argument that there are correct and incorrect ways to give pleasure to another human being. I could point out the dignity inherent in letting people make their own life choices. Could you show me the dignity in telling two (or less, or more for that matter) people that their pleasure is wrong unless it fits strict criteria?
posted by SBMike at 2:06 PM on November 11, 2006

That's not a fact, if by using "fact" you meant to contrast "facts" and "values".

fact = something that can be reasonably demonstrated to exist or to have existed

what civilization has had the highest standard of living, the greatest amount of satisfied people, the healthiest populace and the most free? ... and is liberalism a facet of this civilization or isn't it?

Unfortunately, one thing any tradition that deserves the allegiance of decent people needs to be able to "DO" is display its rational superiority to rival traditions. Liberalism has been a dismal failure in that regard.

only if one turns a blind eye to the last 500 years of human history

prove me wrong about this

From this you claim to be "forced to conclude" that I am "either unwilling or UNABLE to debate your positions in any forum"

you've yet to prove me wrong about this, also

oh, and i can't pass this up

I've been accused of being intellectually dishonest before, and not just in this forum. I really don't understand the charge. Is there something you think I say I believe that I don't really believe? Maybe I just don't understand what the phrase "intellectually dishonest" means. I'm not bluffing here: I really don't understand what the phrase means to convey.

it means that you refuse to state meaningful positions, make meaningful rebuttals to opponents or meaningfully define your terms ... it means that when you are asked a direct question about your position, you repeatedly refuse to answer it ... you've done that to me twice in this thread, first with biblical justification of your belief against non-intercourse sex between married couples and now with your refusal to define, justify or identify what you think the community in communitarianism means

you have reasons that inform your conclusions but you refuse to present them for debate ... you claim that this isn't an appropriate forum, and yet, you cannot know this unless you actually attempt it

this isn't just intellectual dishonesty ... it's intellectual cowardice

don't bother ... i'm through with you ... you have demonstrated many times, to many different people that you are not interested in anything else but running your mouth with little reference to what anyone else responds ... well, you've got 21 days before the thread gets closed permanently, write a novel for all i care

just don't expect me to read it
posted by pyramid termite at 2:14 PM on November 11, 2006

I've been accused of being intellectually dishonest before, and not just in this forum. I really don't understand the charge.

Maybe you ought to work harder at understanding it then. Seriously, it's more than a little irritating to have a communitarian who lacks the basic ability to function in a community.

See, whether you like it or not, you've chosen to be a part of this community, one that is made up of liberals (in both sense of the word). You come here to debate, but then you won't play by the community's rules. It's like if I showed up at a basketball game and bitched and moaned about how they not only didn't follow the rules of golf but are somehow unfair in saying that my not playing by their rules means I'm unfit for the game. Or, it's like if I were Muslim and acted all huffy when Catholics didn't face Mecca while they prayed.
You claim that no one ought to follow a tradition that can't rationally justify itself, but you've provided no rational justification for the one you profess and you pretend that the historical embodiment of that tradition isn't a legitimate source of information about that tradition. You complain that you're not getting a place at the table, but you're unwilling to sit down and eat the food that's offered. You insist you've got a better way fo doing things, but aren't willing to do any work to tell us what that is, or how to acheive it, and you treat us with disdain and contempt when we continue having the discussion our society has been having since before we were born, but you won't demonstrate why having that discussion is contemptible. You compain that the different kinds of liberals are merely conversing about the best way to make a liberal society, as if that's a bad thing, but yo've provided no reason why it's bad for a society to talk about itself to itself in the process of making things work.

If you are a recommendation for Catholicism and/or communtarianism, all I can say is that it's not much of a reccomendation.

you people should be ashamed of yourselves for abusing konolia

Bah. konolia knew what she was doing, and did it anyway. She's a nice girl, but if the house built on sand crumbles when the tide comes in, don't blame the bathers who point out the tide's coming in.
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:57 PM on November 11, 2006

p_t

... Dude, it was your analogy, not mine.

And your saying something is so still does not make it so, even if you feel it should be so.

Your ratherly Byzantinely argued belief that because an act has one important and frequent possible biological function (of many, incidentally; few things in the body really only have one use), then that is the only legitimate (or ideal) purpose of that act is, at base, rather silly.

I'm done here. Ta!
posted by kyrademon at 5:05 PM on November 11, 2006

some or your latest moments of ridiculosity peeping_Thomist: the traditional strategies for defending liberalism required precisely that there be an argument that would be compelling to all minimally rational agents, the "man from mars".

No, for the tenth time. Critique liberalism all you want, as I'm willing to do to some extent, but as pointed out, it's intellectual tradition is perfectly defined in the fruit of what it has given people in practice. You can be a Catholic, vote, and practice your sexuality as you wish here in America. Again, give it a try in Saudi Arabia. Again, please point to a country where anti-liberlaism has allowed for people to act, at all times, according to their faith and/or values. Criticize liberal democracy for not paying enough attention to the fostering of individual virtue. I'd still say you're wrong. But you have no leg to stand on it saying that liberalism has not, in practice, been the most beneficial of political ideologies granted to the world.

And yeah, I think it's an ideology. But the best one among competing ones like, say, Catholicism.

peeping_Thomist writes: That's not a fact, if by using "fact" you meant to contrast "facts" and "values". And if you didn't, please say more about what you think a "fact" is.

Didn't realize you were such a Bill Clinton fan. Precious.
posted by bardic at 5:06 PM on November 11, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: Unfortunately, one thing any tradition that deserves the allegiance of decent people needs to be able to "DO" is display its rational superiority to rival traditions.

Laughable. Thomas Jefferson does not need to get out of his grave and write further arguments for liberal democracy to prove that is has been a success.

Conversely, for a few years National Socialism did just fine (and if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, might still be around) without any serious philosopher other than Martin Heidegger procliaming its "rational superiority." Period.
posted by bardic at 5:20 PM on November 11, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: OK: you people should be ashamed of yourselves for abusing konolia.

This is just too awesome not to pass up. OK, in the span of a few posts, you've tried to change to topic at least as many times. "Liberal Democracy is a travesty!" screams p_T. "Because it has no rational basis, it's a failure!" People point out it has a rational basis, and that by its own definition it isn't trying to be perfect, but rather openly acknowledges its fallibility, i.e., human self-interest. "But in practice it's a failure too!" shouts p_T. Who refuses to give any practical examples of a country where non-liberal traditions have taken hold, and his freedom to be Catholic, vote, and practice his sexuality as he pleases would be allowed. "Well, you haven't read authors X, Y, and Z thoroughly enough!" Well, actually we have, I actually studied with Y, and again, among philosophical traditions, Liberalism of course has internal debates. So does the Catholic church, from any outsider who's seen a Catholic person vote Demoratic, as in the recent elections. p_T shouts "You can't judge Catholicism if you aren't Catholic!" So you get to demarcate a huge swath of religious and political history as "untouchable," but we have to defend Thomas Jefferson owning slaves, and Rawls having to refine (certainly not repudiate) his initial thinking?

Oh, and now you're shrieking "Kuhn! Kuhn! Kuhn!" If that isn't the very definition of a lame derail, I don't know what is.

OK then, let's come full circle -- peeping_Thomist, why can't you stop fucking little boys? It's illegal, it's immoral, and it's disgusting. I know you don't fuck little boys, but I'm going to hold you responsible for the actions of thousands of your fellow believers. Because that's how you debate.
posted by bardic at 5:30 PM on November 11, 2006

Fundies Say The Darnest Things.

There are some staggeringly stupid people displaying a remarkable depth of ignorance in those messages.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 AM on November 12, 2006

Real-life sighting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Germany.
posted by ericb at 1:36 PM on November 12, 2006

Disordered: The Vatican asked Israel to ban a gay pride parade on November 10th.

“The Holy See has reiterated on many occasions that the right to freedom of expression ... is subject to just limits, in particular when the exercise of this right would offend the religious sentiments of believers,” the Vatican said.

Commentary here: This is not a marginal issue; it is at the core of the rights of free speech and religious freedom. Under the position the Vatican sets forth, large zones of religious debate, political debate, and art would be outlawed.

Apparently, the parade was morphed into a rally at a stadium near Jerusalem. Jeus overslept.
posted by Haruspex at 5:06 PM on November 12, 2006

Jeus yclept Jesus.
posted by Haruspex at 5:07 PM on November 12, 2006

SBMike: "I'd like to challenge one of your assumptions that I haven't seen you justify. Answer me this: why does human life have dignity attatched to it? I don't mean that in a cynical way. And I know you could give me a religious reason, but you've seemed pretty committed to keeping your arguments on non-theistic turf, so I hope you will try to do so here as well."

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'll attempt a response, since I think you are asking a fair question, but there isn't space here for an adequate response, and I worry that what I do say will be too roundabout. Here's the barest outline of an answer. In fact, maybe its only an outline of an outline, but it's the best I can do on such short notice and without being able to rely on substantive shared assumptions:

Every tradition has internal to it a conception of the philosophical resources and materials that are available to the common person. Liberalism has such a conception: the common person, acccording to liberalism, is something like the "man from mars" we've sometimes mentioned here. Every attempt so far to vindicate the claims of human dignity to the man from mars (that is, to vindicate such claims in terms of liberalism's conception of minimal rational agency) has failed. This point is so widely acknowledged that it is a truism.

What about the tradition of the virtues? Here I'd make a distinction between the tradition of the virtues in its current form, which has been much influenced by revealed religion, and earlier versions of that tradition that did not yet recognize revealed religion.

Take the latter first. Under the influence of revealed religion, the tradition of the virtues has developed many resources for talking about human dignity. We talk, for example, about individual human beings having been created by a loving God, and about human beings in virtue of having reason and free will as having been created in the image of that God. We talk about a natural law that is ineffaceable from the human heart (and hence is available to every common person, whatever deformations of character he or she may have suffered), and which commands us to do good and avoid evil, and gives us rudimentary knowledge of the goods we should seek and something of the proper order among those goods. We talk about God as having revealed that, contrary to what merely human wisdom might have led us to expect, God has a special, preferential love for the poor, that is, for all those human individuals who are weak and marginalized and do not seem to have a place in this world, and about God having commanded us to imitate him precisely by loving the poor. In short, we say that each and every human person has an incomparable dignity, and that every common person, whether or not he or she knows the reasons for it, has a awareness of this reality, however confused and inarticulate this awareness may be.

That's the tradition of the virtues after it has come under the influence of revealed religion, and you've quite reasonably said you're not interested in hearing about such an account. So what about the tradition of the virtues in the form it took before it came under the influence of revealed religion? Does it have resources for answering the question of why human life has dignity attached to it?

I think the obvious figure to turn to here is Aristotle. On his account, healthy, mature and properly functioning human beings can engage in theoretical contemplation of nature and of the divine to the extent that the divine turns out to be knowable by the contemplation of nature. From this consideration it follows that there are two ways in which human beings can flourish or do well: either, in the primary sense, by engaging in such contemplation themselves, or else in a secondary sense, by contributing to a shared way of life (what Aristotle calls the political life) that makes possible human well-being in the primary sense. Individuals who are not themselves living well in either of these two ways merit our consideration insofar as they have as-yet-unrealized potential to live well in one of these two ways. If a human being for whatever reason never can actualize the potential to live well, either because of having physical defects, or because of being marginalized or powerless or exiled or unwanted, then it is unclear why a reasonable person would be willing to expend any effort caring for that person, who will always remain a non-contributor to human well-being. Aristotle thinks that the common person, by reflecting appropriately on what people do and how people live, will be able to be brought to recognize, at least in outline, the truth of this account.

MacIntyre recently tried to develop an argument, not directly dependent on revealed religion, for extending concern within the tradition of the virtues to dependent persons. He claims that in reflecting on the conditions for the possibility of our own efforts at living well, we come to realize that we too have in the past been dependent on other people, sometimes are now dependent on other people (for example, when we are sick), and will probably in the future be dependent upon other people. He thinks these reflections, many of them first articulated by feminist thinkers, should lead us to temper somewhat the traditional ideal of rational self-sufficiency, and should lead us instead to recognize that human well-being always requires communities in which less-dependent persons extend to more-dependent persons solicitude and concern. This allows us to see the permanently dependent among us as having an important place in well-ordered communities of virtue. The dependent thus contribute in a distinctive way to human well-being, and merit dignity, and common persons are able to come to recognize this by reflecting on the structures of the communities in which they have achieved the level of independence they have achieved.

In short, the tradition of the virtues claims that human persons have dignity either in virtue of being made in the image of God (and everything that goes along with that, in which you are not interested), or else in virtue of being potential contributors to a shared way of life that makes possible noble activity, a shared way of life that may or may not include well-defined roles for permanently dependent persons.

The claim that individual human persons have dignity simply in virtue of being individual human persons, apart from any particular political or theological context, utterly lacks rational justification.

"If you zoom out far enough, we disappear. Where's the dignity in that? I know where it is. I think most of us do. It's in our minds. Dignity is a gift that we give to each other,[...]"

There is nothing rationally justified about the proposal to "give each other dignity" on such terms.

pyramid termite: "what civilization has had the highest standard of living, the greatest amount of satisfied people, the healthiest populace and the most free?"

How do you move from these descriptors to "better"?

"you refuse to state meaningful positions, make meaningful rebuttals to opponents or meaningfully define your terms"

Your repeated use of the word "meaningful" here signals, I think, where our differences ultimately are going to lie.

eustacescrubb: "You come here to debate, but then you won't play by the community's rules."

I deny this. I haven't violated any rules.

"You claim that no one ought to follow a tradition that can't rationally justify itself, but you've provided no rational justification for the one you profess"

Yes. And? How is that a "violation" of the "rules"? One way it could be a violation of the rules would be if one of the rules of this community was that no member of the community was ever allowed to acknowledge the truth of or refer to as rationally justified any proposition that cannot be shown within the community to be rationally justified. But this isn't that kind of community.

"you pretend that the historical embodiment of that tradition isn't a legitimate source of information about that tradition."

I don't understand how I have done anything of the sort. It is precisely the historical embodiment of any tradition to which one must turn for information about it.

"You compain that the different kinds of liberals are merely conversing about the best way to make a liberal society, as if that's a bad thing, but yo've provided no reason why it's bad for a society to talk about itself to itself in the process of making things work."

Metafilter does not proclaim that non-liberals (in any sense of "liberal") are not welcome as members. I've been here since 2001. In any case, you all weren't "conversing" with konolia.

"If you are a recommendation for Catholicism and/or communtarianism, all I can say is that it's not much of a reccomendation."

I certainly agree with that sentiment. I do the best I can, but sometimes my best isn't very good. If you look at my contributions to this thread from the beginning, you can see that I wasn't looking for this particular kind of fight, at least not from the beginning. Looking back over my first several contributions to the discussion, I can see that I wasn't looking to completely derail the thread.

kyrademon: "p_t ... Dude, it was your analogy, not mine."

Yes, and at least one thing the analogy shows is that a thing can have a purpose even though it very rarely achieves it.

"Your ratherly Byzantinely argued belief that because an act has one important and frequent possible biological function (of many, incidentally; few things in the body really only have one use), then that is the only legitimate (or ideal) purpose of that act is, at base, rather silly."

I do not believe that. There are plenty of human acts that have important biological functions that can be legimately used for other purposes. (I do not think, for example, that running on a treadmill is immoral, but on the false principle you attribute to me it seems I should, since running on a treadmill is the performance of an act that has the purpose of moving us from one place to another, but on a treadmill we never get anywhere.) My point was about the fact that our sexual powers are ordered toward the procreation of new human life which has a special dignity, of which we are all dimly aware, and that the resultant awe and humility in the face of that mystery should lead us to regard the acts of our sexual powers in a way significantly different from how we regard the acts of our other powers. I don't see what is so "Byzantine" about that claim, and it is troubling to me that I apparently made it so badly that you have completely mischaracterized it.

bardic: "[Liberalism's] intellectual tradition is perfectly defined in the fruit of what it has given people in practice."

The intellectual tradition is perfectly defined in the fruit of what it has given people in practice? I've tried a few times, but I can't parse that. What are you saying?

"Criticize liberal democracy for not paying enough attention to the fostering of individual virtue."

No, thanks. That's not my point at all. The way liberal individualism thinks about individuals in relation to communities is the problem. That problem won't be overcome by seeking to promote "individual virtue".

"you have no leg to stand on it saying that liberalism has not, in practice, been the most beneficial of political ideologies granted to the world."

Sure I do: you're assuming an unjustified and unjustifiable conception of what is and is not "beneficial". Providing people more of what they will want whatever else they want (which liberalism does spectacularly well) benefits them only if they can thereby get more of whatever else they want. Liberalism notoriously faces serious challenges on that front.

"And yeah, I think it's an ideology. But the best one among competing ones like, say, Catholicism."

You know that how, exactly? Because liberalism is the best according to liberalism's conception of what is best? That is seriously your answer?

Ob Haggard-filter: I think this blog entry by Robert Miller does a good job of addressing the question of whether Haggard was a hypocrite. The crucial question is what hypocrisy is:
A man is not a hypocrite because he violates a moral norm in which he sincerely believes. President Clinton, I am sure, believes that adultery is wrong, and he violated the norm against it in his dalliance with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky; but this made him an adulterer, not a hypocrite. Similarly, decent parents think they ought to be patient with their children, but an overworked mother who snaps at her child at the end of a long day is guilty of impatience, not hypocrisy. Violating norms we sincerely accept does not make us hypocrites. If it did, hypocrisy would not be a peculiar kind of wrongdoing but a concomitant of all wrongdoing.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:59 PM on November 12, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes: Every attempt so far to vindicate the claims of human dignity to the man from mars (that is, to vindicate such claims in terms of liberalism's conception of minimal rational agency) has failed. This point is so widely acknowledged that it is a truism.

Citation please? Or just let us know what university you teach political science at. It would clear up a lot. I'll go ahead and refer you to Rorty and Habermas again (who certainly disagree on a lot). In a liberal society, if I stab someone, even if I'm a genius philosopher/sophist, I still go to jail even if the rights of the victim haven't been articulated properly. Theory cannot be separated from praxis in the study of political philosophy.

For the final time, you've criticized liberalism for its theoretical underpinnings and for its practice. I have as well, with the caveat that we have to wake up every morning and live our lives. I'll take an imperfect philsophy that allows for the best praxis over philosophical attempts at perfection that lead us to, what, in practice? Maoism? Stalinism? The Spanish Inquisition? The rubber hits the road somewhere, and trying to remind people of potentional conflicts within the philosophical "fathers" of Liberalism cannot be separated from the actual, day-today benefits of said Liberalism (and this obviously pains you greatly). Again, your Catholicism, your right to marry whom you want and have sex with that person how you do or don't want, and your right to vote on referendums? Where did these rights come from, and why would you possibly want to give them up? Hell, you seem like a pretty strange guy, but I'd go to the mat for any person to live his or her life without intererence from others as long as they do no harm (this is where you launch into a derail about flaws in Mill's On Liberty I guess. I know they're there, but in general the principle holds).

People live by their individual and collective ideologies. Liberalism is not perfect, by design, but it's the best system humans have ever had. Please peeping_Thomist, since you're so quick to declare that Liberalism has failed in practice, please tell us where it's better. In what country? At what time? Frankly, you owe us that much. You've got roughly 5,000 years of human history to choose from. Go for it big guy.
posted by bardic at 9:49 PM on November 12, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes A man is not a hypocrite because he violates a moral norm in which he sincerely believes.

Yes, he is. Even moreso when he's made millions of dollars professing a moral code that he doesn't live up to. But it's nice to know there's someone willing to defend Haggard when even James Dobson won't.
posted by bardic at 9:54 PM on November 12, 2006

(And hypocrisy is only Haggard's moral failing here. His legal ones are buying drugs and consorting with a prostitute, and I hope he does some hard time like anyone else would getting caught for the same things, especially for that amount of meth.)

And I'm going to risk being labeled a pedant for doing this, but the meaning of "hypocrisy" from the American Heritage Dictionary: hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s) n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Not only is Haggard a hypocrite, he pretty much embodies the term and its definition. The parent who yells at her child is certainly a bit of a hypocrite if she tells her friends how important it is to be patient with kids. She is a raging, absolute hypocrite if she makes millions of dollars peddling books and speeches about the moral superiority of her patient-with-kids lifestyle.

Strange that an atheist and proponent of Liberal Democracy like myself has a firmer moral compass than you seem to. Or maybe not.
posted by bardic at 10:02 PM on November 12, 2006

OK, a few things:

If a human being for whatever reason never can actualize the potential to live well, either because of having physical defects, or because of being marginalized or powerless or exiled or unwanted, then it is unclear why a reasonable person would be willing to expend any effort caring for that person, who will always remain a non-contributor to human well-being. Aristotle thinks that the common person, by reflecting appropriately on what people do and how people live, will be able to be brought to recognize, at least in outline, the truth of this account.

Well, you've admitted that there's no rational basis for an a priori human dignity outside of a religious worldview, so I won't dwell on your appeal to consequences here, but I will say that while I agree with your normative conclusion, that the stronger members of society should devote resources to helping the less fortunate members, this ideal is due to evolution more than anything else.

Helping out "weak" members of society (those who are not fit to survive given the current circumstances), helps the community by preserving genes (or skills, cultural ideals, traditions; evolution accounts for the passing on of more than just chemical information) that might not provide a survival advantage at the time, but could prove to be useful in the future (I guess this parallels your argument of the possibility to fulfill human potential as being responsible for dignity). If conditions change, today's weakness can be tomorrow's strength. This is the whole point of diversification actually. This is just my semi-informed hypothesis, but I'm pretty sure it makes sense. Any evolutionary biologists out there care to clarify?

There is nothing rationally justified about the proposal to "give each other dignity" on such terms.

Actually, in this context, it is perfectly rational. Dignity is an idea that humans evolved in order to protect aspects of our humanity that are important in the long run, even if they cannot demonstrate their usefulness in the short term. We are all "dimly aware of human dignity" as you put it, perhaps for the simple reason that societies that lack this conception of dignity aren't typically the strongest societies and tend to fail. The anthropic principle of dignity, if you will.

Given this, dignity is a choice we make. We can choose to give it to each other and reap the benefits, or neglect it and suffer the consequences.

There, I've just set the parameters for a conception of dignity that are rational. My concept of dignity ultimately leads to letting people choose what to do with their own bodies. Yours ultimately leads to shame, confusion, double lives, and, well, Ted Haggard. I think my rational dignity wins.

If you're still not convinced, maybe I'll spell it out for you. Treating homosexuals with dignity is a survival advantage to our species. Our planet is overpopulated and we are currently outbreeding our resources. Homosexuality is a relief for this problem because a)homosexuals typically don't reproduce and b)they occasionally adopt and raise (and would certainly do so more often if our society didn't have such knee-jerk fears to it) children that would otherwise not have support. Creating new life without considering the consequences of creating another mouth to feed does not increase the net dignity in this world. Using our resources more wisely will increase this dignity, and that means changing our values so that popping out babies isn't considered an unmitigated good. It's a value that had served us well in a previoius era of our existence, but modern times dictate that allowing people to opt out of reproduction if they do not wish to devote the resources to create and maintain new life benefits us in a fairly clear way. This includes leaving gay people alone, letting straight couples use birth control as they wish, and yes, letting people practice abstinence if they so desire.

pyramid termite: "what civilization has had the highest standard of living, the greatest amount of satisfied people, the healthiest populace and the most free?"

peeping_Thomist: How do you move from these descriptors to "better"?

Look at how people vote with their feet. How many people risk their lives, families, homes, languages, etc. to leave their societies that don't practice liberalism and come to the societies that do (and also consider the reverse). I guess somebody who doesn't see the value of liberal democracy won't appreciate the collective will, hopes, dreams, and anguish of millions of people as proof of the "betterness" of liberalism, but I think it's clear to everyone else.

Ob Haggard-filter: I think this blog entry by Robert Miller does a good job of addressing the question of whether Haggard was a hypocrite. The crucial question is what hypocrisy is:

That you would somehow argue (or implicity advance support for an argument) that Haggard is not a hypocrite makes my head spin. Having read this far in the thread, I didn't think anything you'd say would surprise me, but I guess I was wrong. Seriously, wow.
posted by SBMike at 12:26 AM on November 13, 2006 [1 favorite]

What bardic and SBMike said.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:55 AM on November 13, 2006

bardic: "peeping_Thomist writes: Every attempt so far to vindicate the claims of human dignity to the man from mars (that is, to vindicate such claims in terms of liberalism's conception of minimal rational agency) has failed. This point is so widely acknowledged that it is a truism.

Citation please?"

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is widely respected as an even-handed resource. Here are the final three paragraphs of the SEP's entry on Liberalism:

3. The Return of a Purely Political Liberalism?
Prominent liberals have recently shied away from the conception of liberalism as a comprehensive philosophy, and have sought to return to its roots: as a purely political doctrine. This important development, aptly enough described as ‘political liberalism’, insists that liberalism as a comprehensive philosophy — as including an ethical theory, an epistemology or a metaphysics of the person and society — is just one more controversial or ‘sectarian’ doctrine in a society already filled with such doctrines. To John Rawls (1993: 5ff), the preeminent proponent of this view, such a ‘sectarian liberalism’ is open to rational dispute, and thus is not in the requisite sense publicly justified. If it is to serve as the basis for public reasoning in our diverse western societies, liberalism must be restricted to a core set of political principles that are, or can be, the subject of consensus among all reasonable citizens. Rawls's notion of a purely political conception seems in fact more austere than the traditional liberal political theories discussed above, being largely restricted to constitutional principles upholding basic civil liberties and the democratic process.

There are good grounds for doubting that liberalism can really rid itself of controversial metaphysical (Hampton, 1989) or epistemological (Raz, 1990; Gaus, 1996) commitments. As indicated above, Rawls seems to rest his case on the requirements of public justification, yet he seeks a distinctly political, non-epistemological, conception of justification (1993:44). And this, of course, because epistemological theories are controversial. We thus seem driven to the idea that a citizen could ‘politically justify’ a claim in a way that violates her epistemic standards of what constitutes a good reason. It is not at all clear, though, whether one could see oneself as having a politically justified claim on another while recognising that the argument for that claim depends on what, from one's epistemic perspective, are bad reasons (Gaus, 1996: 131ff).

Liberalism is, first and foremost, a political theory, yet it seems dubious that it can be a purely political theory. While no liberal need embrace every element of the wider liberal philosophy — not every liberal must advance a liberal notion of the morally right, a liberal conception of value, a liberal epistemology and a liberal metaphysics of the person — it is hard to see how any liberal political theory can avoid all of these. To be sure, no necessary principles mandate how political philosophy links up to the rest of philosophy. But neither is it an entirely autonomous field; hence the ‘comprehensive’ nature of all liberal theories.

Encyclopedias are not the place for advancing dramatic new claims; they are places for consolidating the current consensus. The current consensus is that all liberal theories are comprehensive; the contrary position is, to quote the entry, "dubious".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:26 AM on November 13, 2006

I'm sorry I didn't make clear at the end of my long post lat night that I was quoting Miller, not speaking in my own voice. I'm not sure what I think hypocrisy is and I'm doubly unsure whether I think Haggard is a hypocrite. I tried to use a "quote" tag, which didn't work. I'll use the "small" tag in the future.

Looking at what I wrote (that Miller "does a good job of addressing the question"), I see that it looks like I'm saying I agree with Miller. What I should have said is that Miller does a good job of raising the question of what hypocrisy is, which I think is an interesting question. I haven't thought enough about it to be able to say how I would answer it. I do, however, agree with Miller's point that our account of hypocrisy has to make it turn out so that it is possible for a person to violate a norm in which he or she sincerely believes without thereby being a hypocrite.

I think that if the people in this thread were not so offended by what the belief was against which Haggard was acting, you'd be far less quick to accuse him of hypocrisy. Miller's use of the example of the impatient parent seems about right. And, to rebut bardic, I don't see anything hypocritical about an impatient person writing a book about the importance of patience in parenting, so long as that person is not putting himself or herself forward as exemplary in the virtue of patience.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:49 AM on November 13, 2006

Should I be a Catholic now? Or gay? I know why the sky is blue, at least names for the concepts, but why is blue blue?
[I feel like a tiny child playing, as titans clash.]
posted by econous at 12:14 PM on November 13, 2006

I think that if the people in this thread were not so offended by what the belief was against which Haggard was acting, you'd be far less quick to accuse him of hypocrisy.

Preposterous. Both you and Miller disingenuously seek to forget that Haggard profited from his espoused (heh) moral stance for years, and that he actively sought to deprive others of their demanded rights — regardless of whether you think they deserve those rights, according to however you interpret the auspices of your petty little communitarian deity.

You may babble agreement with their avowed precepts, p_T, and you may likewise feel a warm sympathetic throb in the wobbling sac of your most closely-held convictions, but Miller and ilk have a queasy stake in defending Haggard — and they join him in his hypocrisy.

Sidebar: I also note, with particular contempt, that Miller hauls out Clinton's adultery for a (n inapt) comparison. To paraphrase the perpetually relevant patriarch of Ferney, if Clinton didn't exist, it would be necessary for neocon conservatives to invent him.

And are we simply to rehash Burke vs. Paine for all eternity? At least Burke could write, if you will, like an angel.
posted by Haruspex at 12:27 PM on November 13, 2006

that, um, doesn't even address the point you made for which bardic asked for a citation. You claimed that everyone knows the concept of human dignity that liberals espouse can't be proven suing liberal philosophy; the paragraphs you quote are just saying that liberalism functions better as a politics than as an epistemology but that they (liberal politics and liberal epistemology) probably can't be seperated.

I think that's hogwash, of course, because only academics actually believe that people behave in ways consistent with some academic philosophy. In reality, theory always comes after practice, used as a means to describe what people already do and believe. What Rawls did or did not describe doesn't matter in many ways, because he wasn't describing us; he was describing other people, who are now dead. It matters only to the extent that his descriptions can shed light on how people behave now, but if Rawls turns out to be wrong, it doesn't mean the whole house will tumble down; it just means his description fit then and doesn't fit now, or it never fit, but in either case, it no more invalidates liberalism in practice than my inability to describe how a car works keeps the car from running.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:41 PM on November 13, 2006

Yikes. Formatting bug.

I was replying to this bit from p_T:

Here are the final three paragraphs of the SEP's entry on Liberalism:
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:44 PM on November 13, 2006

[I feel like a tiny child playing, as titans clash.]

*sits with econous, rolling bones* : >

from rudepundit on Haggard and his crowd: ... May He stop Spitzer, et al, and similarly-minded officeholders from achieving their same-sex marriage ambitions." Yep, God must stop Elliot Spitzer from giving gay couples health benefits access.

Fuck, God doesn't even wanna stop a fuckin' war or mass starvation. Elliot fuckin' Spitzer? What kind of punk-ass micromanaging God are we members of the Super-Duper Prayer Team being asked to pray to? No wonder none of the prayers worked: we've been ordered to reduce God, big fuckin' hurricane-makin' sky wizard that he might be, to the size of a pissant out-of-work political operative offerin' to blow lobbyists for quarters on a K Street corner.
posted by amberglow at 12:58 PM on November 13, 2006

Wow. Angels dancing on the heads of pins, just around the corner.

The point is, Haggard is the new standard for "hypocrisy," and his tawdry evil is a perfect metonym for how many of us have experienced the intentions of the religious right and the "Christian" busybodies who have until recently dominated American politics.

The rest of it is hair-splitting.

And P_T, what you advocate is a recipe for the war of all against all, which is what we slowly foment in the Middle East as, once again, Muslims and Christians lend their creeds as justifications for killing people who need to be put on the moral path (as y'all seaprately define it) for their own damn good. Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw -- "Be Nice to America Or We'll Bring Democracy to YOUR Country." Your rights end where mine begin, thank you very much. If you're correct in your fantasy projections, you'll be rewarded for being better than me in the sweet bye and bye. I bet not. In the meantime, kindly keep your arcane codes of conduct yourself and don't tell me how to be saved or treat me as if I am a moral failure for failing to see things according to your old book.

Theology is an irrelevant subject in matters of civil society's concern, beyond the necessary extension of a formal right to believe what you want and say what you believe. Other than that, it's a contest of ideas that must be supported by evident facts upon which all reasonable people can agree, roughly (Habermas, I believe, was mentioned above in passing and is the preeminent theorist of this view of liberal democracy).

Ted Haggard's case presents one such evident fact: he is the latest in a long line of would-be moral arbiters being revealed as deprecators of their own code in private, and on the sly. The worst failure an argument can have is when its supporters provide - nay, exemplify --the best evidence against its veracity. It's why hypocrisy is the cardinal sin, as it were, of a secular, rational, liberal society founded on the principle that we are ALL EQUAL before the law (even if some of us are not equal before the lord, according to the believer set). What is good enough for you is damn well good enough for me: the privilege of holding my beliefs as such, and the agency to have arrived at those beliefs by a process no less or more valid than yours.

Religion, with its appeal to the aforementioned unconfirmable and nonconsensual noumena for authority, is ultimately incompatible with freedom and democracy unless it is carefully protected from reasoned critique ("in God we trust," my ass -- who you callin' 'we,' white man?) and the process of advancing society by reasoned critique is protected from it. (See: disestablishment clause.)

Metafilter is a functional community because it encourages reasoned critique of ideas and not their agents, and because it values intelligent discourse. But intelligent flourishes can mask plainer truths that boil down to this: keep your faith but keep your distance while you do it. It is impossible not to respond personally to a philosophical position that advocates the violation of my person or the persons of folks I care about as fellow citizens.

But you are clearly not to be convinced, and thus it is a waste of time to respond to you (but for the possibility of overhearing waverers).
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:38 PM on November 13, 2006 [1 favorite]

Liberalism, by its very definition, does not stive for perfection. As a political philosophy, it indeed has internal tensions. When the Stanford Encyclopedia says: To John Rawls (1993: 5ff), the preeminent proponent of this view, such a ‘sectarian liberalism’ is open to rational dispute, and thus is not in the requisite sense publicly justified. If it is to serve as the basis for public reasoning in our diverse western societies, liberalism must be restricted to a core set of political principles that are, or can be, the subject of consensus among all reasonable citizens. Rawls's notion of a purely political conception seems in fact more austere than the traditional liberal political theories discussed above, being largely restricted to constitutional principles upholding basic civil liberties and the democratic process. This changes nothing. Liberalism as both a philosophy and a practice changes over time. This is actually quite consistent, but I'll grant, rather messy in practice at times.

Again, peeping_Thomist, if we agree that we're talking about the gaps between political philosophy and its practice, it's entirely incumbent upon you to offer up one non- or anti-liberal society that "works." Over 5,000 years of human history to choose from -- please enlighten us.

If all of your blather in this thread comes down to you wanting to argue that Liberalism has inconsistencies, I agree. What I think you've been trying to do is argue, falesly, that a system which has fallibility built in is hopelessly doomed, you now have to give us some real-world examples, because again, your right right to worship, vote, and have sex as you choose are all products of Liberal democracy. You haven't even tried to refute this fact, because you can't and you know it.

Indeed, thank God for "rational dispute." We build our cities down here on top of the mud, not up in the sky, because we have to. Three cheers for "rational dispute" -- it's not the spanner in the works that spells doom for our shared Liberal democracy, but exactly what makes it so great. Again, re-read the Federalist Papers -- that's the whole fracking point -- get the citizens having a debate (like, say, this one) to divert their collective energies, rather than a jihad over which skygod is more grandiose. Simplefying a bit here, but that's the genius of it.

A society which begins with a priori theological principles (not quite what you've proposed, but I'll admit, I've got my suspicions) is doomed to blood-letting, eventually, both in theory and yes, in practice.
posted by bardic at 3:56 PM on November 13, 2006

Ted Haggard, h3's in ur doodz, really

PT, h3's in ur thread killing your logic
posted by caddis at 4:55 PM on November 13, 2006

You know who else was a meth-snorting homosexual? Jesus.
posted by interrobang at 7:39 PM on November 13, 2006

*interrobang slaps five with his 4th grade classmates (hee, hee, perhaps we should try a fart joke next time, huh?)
posted by caddis at 8:13 PM on November 13, 2006

Don't put words in my mouth, fartface.
posted by interrobang at 8:45 AM on November 14, 2006

Or farts. Don't put farts in his mouth either, wordface.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:44 PM on November 14, 2006

Sheesh. I told you people, didn't I? Heh heh heh...

"In short, the tradition of the virtues claims that human persons have dignity... in virtue of being potential contributors to a shared way of life that makes possible noble activity, a shared way of life that may or may not include well-defined roles for permanently dependent persons."

I feel this actually to be a solid claim for human dignity, given the proven reality that there are groups of humans living together in a dependent interrelationship system - which applies to all humans since we started being human, I think - all our higher primate relatives live in groups or "tribes" of a sort. I don't even think you need to use the words "noble activity," as you can just say "activity that is to the benefit of the entire group."

In my opinion, with that basis for definition of dignity, there's no need for any sort of religious one. This definition should be sufficient for anyone.

Seems to me that some key points of liberalism stem directly from that definition...

But, I think at this point it's important for me to ask: peeping_Thomist, do you feel that your above-quoted "tradition of virtue" definition of "dignity" is a rational one? If not, why not?

It certainly seems to be simple and straightforward to me: essentially, asserting that all humans have potential value to the whole of humanity, and thus should be cared for by the rest of us.

There certainly have been many things that we call "civilizations" in the past who have not believed this at all, where value of human life was determined arbitrarily by the opinions of some "elite" group that held some kind of power, whether violent or merely persuasive, over the larger population. That probably applies still today over large parts of the earth.

I personally don't define a society that devalues human life and dignity as "civilized," but obviously the dictionaries do.

Do liberal societies not try to help all their people live with the most acknowledgement of their dignity that they can? (Within, of course, the limits caused by human imperfections.)
posted by zoogleplex at 5:23 PM on November 14, 2006

Despite what zoogleplex thinks, I don't live inside my brain, and I've been swamped in the past few days with professional and family obligations. I'll post again in this thread in another day or two.

ObHaggardfilter: the key to making sense of Haggard's brittleness is the Protestant rejection of the Catholic doctrine of concupiscence.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:32 AM on November 15, 2006

bardic: "Liberalism is not perfect, by design, but it's the best system humans have ever had. Please peeping_Thomist, since you're so quick to declare that Liberalism has failed in practice, please tell us where it's better. In what country? At what time? Frankly, you owe us that much. You've got roughly 5,000 years of human history to choose from."

You correctly link liberalism and modernity. Every modern nation-state is a place of conflict between conservative liberalism, liberal liberalism, and radical liberalism (which tries but invariably fails to reimpose morality, from the top down, by totalitarian or terrorist means). What makes these different political ideologies variants of liberalism is the fact that they all take for granted a form of social organization that MacIntyre correctly labels bureaucratic individualism, in which the central political conflict is always framed as a debate over the extent to which public institutions should, in the name of utility, limit the rights of self-interested individuals:

But in fact what is crucial is that on which the contending parties agree, namely that there are only two alternative modes of social life open to us, one in which the free and arbitrary choices of individuals are sovereign and one in which the bureaucracy is sovereign, precisely so that it may limit the free and abitrary choices of individuals. Given this deep cultural agreement, it is unsurprising that the politics of modern societies oscillate between a freedom which is nothing but a lack of regulation of individual behavior and forms of collectivist control designed only to limit the anarchy of self-interest. The consequences of a victory by one side or the other are often of the highest immediate importance; but, as Solzhenitzyn has understood so well, both ways of life are in the long run intolerable. Thus the society in which we live is one in which bureaucracy and individualism are partners as well as antagonists. (After Virtue, 2nd edition, p. 35)

This deep cultural agreement about the silent partnership between bureaucracy and individualism runs so deep that many if not most liberals cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the fact that there are ways of organizing human affairs that result in something other than the perpetual oscillation between the deregulation of individual behavior in one swing of the pendulum and the bureaucratic imposition of limits on individual behavior as the pendulum swings back. (If you are a liberal liberal you are happy right now because the pendulum just swung your way, but you also know that it will soon enough swing the way of the conservative liberals.)

With all that said, allow me now to register my shock, dismay, and disgust at your continual preening about the supposed glories of liberalism, which infamously prides itself on being the "least bad" form of social organization. Least bad? Can you really be serious? Do you honestly wish to sing the praises of a mode of social life that has brought us to the brink (and in some cases pushed us over) of such catastrophes as global warming, nuclear winter, and killer nanorobots, and that has a long track record of such crimes against humanity and nature as the mass extinction of species, the wanton destruction of indigenous cultures, the slaughter of literally hundreds of millions on the killing fields, politically motivated famines and other forms of genocide, the domination of technology over every human value, the military-industrial complex, the globalized fast-food nation in which "meat science" replaces animal husbandry, and so on? Perhaps you liberals are not yet aware that life on earth is not a video game and does not have a reset button?

Perhaps you anticipate that when everything goes up in smoke, as any reasonable person can see will happen soon enough, the last remaining liberal-liberal can honestly say, as we descend back into darkness, "well, it was good while it lasted." But that is nonsense. It wasn't good while it lasted; it was absurd while it lasted. Every modern nation-state makes public policy decisions by putting a dollar value on human lives, and then crunching the numbers, even though every single one of us knows that there are some kinds of goods that do not have a price and cannot be quantified. I hardly need to mention that different bureaucratic agencies assign a different dollar value to human lives in different contexts (your life is worth more to the NTSB when you fly in a plane than when you drive on interstate highways, and so on). There is something profoundly irrational about how we live, yet we call ourselves free and congratulate ourselves on living in the "least bad" of all possible political arrangements. Least bad? Are you fucking kidding me? Doesn't anyone read Kafka and Nietzsche any more? The air stinks!

Do you honestly, and by this, bardic, I mean in your heart of hearts, not in your facade as mefite tough guy, believe that modernity is sustainable in the long run? I don't see how you could. How can a form of social organization structured around the pursuit of ever more of "what one must want whatever else one wants" give rise to anything other than institutionalized rapacity? So far it has not, of course. (That much is a matter of public record.) I guess you must hope that at some point liberalism will finally turn the corner and stop raping the planet? Perhaps you think that the bad features of modernity are the fault of the other guys, the bad liberals, while the contributions your guys, the good liberals, have admittedly made to the current world crises, things like McDonalds and the firebombing of Dresden and the "preemptive war" on Iraq, don't reveal anything fundamentally flawed about (liberal) liberalism as such. As soon as it defeats the various bad liberalisms once and for all, your preferred variant of liberalism will finally be able find a way to transform itself into something sustainable.

Yeah, that'll happen!

And I'll bet you fancy that Wahabbism isn't an essentially modern political movement, either. In point of fact, all versions of fundamentalism are modern radical (totalitarian/terrorist) reactions to modernity, and not organic developments within healthy, traditions of rational inquiry. You think National Socialism wasn't modern to its core?

Please note that I am willing to acknowledge and take appropriate personal responsibility for the Inquisitions, the Crusades, Galileo, and the pedophile-shielding hierarchy. I see these as serious problems internal to my own tradition. I also believe I can show that my tradition has done the hard work (or in the case of the shielding of pedophiles, is preparing to do the hard work) needed to create the internal resources required to resolve these problems rationally. But I doubt you will acknowledge or take any personal responsibility for any of the problems of liberalism I've identified above, even though these problems are orders of magnitude worse than anything my tradition has ever done. I imagine you do not see these problems as in any way attributable to your deepest political commitments, the deep cultural agreement to which MacIntyre refers, because you, like Rorty and Habermas, refuse to acknowledge that there are alternatives to bureaucratic individualism other than what you all disgracefully mock as "unreason".

Anyway, to finally answer your question, I'll take China from 770 to 222 BC, Northern India from 240 to 550, Persia from 950 to 1191 or Paris from 1100 to 1277.

SBMike: "you've admitted that there's no rational basis for an a priori human dignity outside of a religious worldview,"

I have not. I don't even know what you mean, since I don't know what a worldview is.

"I will say that while I agree with your normative conclusion, that the stronger members of society should devote resources to helping the less fortunate members,"

I have said no such thing. "Normative conclusion"? What the fuck are you talking about?

"dignity is a choice we make. We can choose to give it to each other and reap the benefits, or neglect it and suffer the consequences."

Whatever you are talking about (and I have no idea what it is), it is not dignity.

econous: "Should I be a Catholic now? Or gay?"

Why not both?

Haruspex: "Miller and ilk have a queasy stake in defending Haggard"

I don't disagree with that. I still don't see that Haggard is a hypocrite.

"I also note, with particular contempt, that Miller hauls out Clinton's adultery for a (n inapt) comparison."

I share your disdain for his use of that comparison.

"And are we simply to rehash Burke vs. Paine for all eternity?"

Now we are getting somewhere. Burke is the archetype of the conservative liberal. He sees tradition as primarily a source of stability: He thinks reason is mercurial and dangerous, so he thinks we need a received set of customs to keep the brakes firmly applied to reason, which otherwise would spin out of control. That is a liberal way of thinking about the relationship between reason and tradition.

In point of fact, reason always and only develops internal to particular traditions. As Wittgenstein famously observed, agreement in judgment and agreement in definitions are conditions for the possibility of agreement on meaning. But within the context of agreement in judgment and definitions, there remains room for dramatic conflicts. Look at the University of Paris in the 13th century. There was open war between the theology faculty and the liberal arts faculty, town and gown conflicts far beyond anything the Duke lacrosse team could dream up, student strikes, teacher strikes, and, to top it all off, ecclesiastical anathemas flying in every direction. Only a liberal could imagine that agreement on dogma stabilizes rational conflict. Agreement on dogma is precisely what makes possible fruitful rational disagreement.

eustacescrubb: "that, um, doesn't even address the point you made for which bardic asked for a citation. You claimed that everyone knows the concept of human dignity that liberals espouse can't be proven suing liberal philosophy; the paragraphs you quote are just saying that liberalism functions better as a politics than as an epistemology but that they (liberal politics and liberal epistemology) probably can't be seperated."

You are right about the intent of the paragraph; I needed to do something to explain how I was using that paragraph to get to a conclusion not explicitly stated in it. I wasn't claiming that the concept of human dignity that liberals espouse can't be proven using liberal philosophy (all a liberal philosopher would need to do is declare, as many of them actually do, that they have an "intuition" about humans having dignity), but rather that human dignity can't be proved using the philosophical resources liberal philosophy recognizes as available to the common man. I was taking the failure of political liberalism to separate itself from comprehensive liberalism to be evidence of this.

fourcheesemac: "P_T, what you advocate is a recipe for the war of all against all"

No it isn't.

"Your rights end where mine begin, thank you very much."

Since there are no such things as universal human rights, I can live with that.

"it's a contest of ideas that must be supported by evident facts upon which all reasonable people can agree"

No it isn't.

"Metafilter is a functional community because it encourages reasoned critique of ideas and not their agents, and because it values intelligent discourse."

Yet it permits vile abuse of people with unpopular beliefs.

"It is impossible not to respond personally to a philosophical position that advocates the violation of my person or the persons of folks I care about as fellow citizens."

Bullshit. It is eminently possible. Read Martin Luther King, for heaven's sake.

bardic: "What I think you've been trying to do is argue, falesly, that a system which has fallibility built in is hopelessly doomed"

I'm an advocate of methodological fallibilism.

"Indeed, thank God for "rational dispute." We build our cities down here on top of the mud, not up in the sky, because we have to. Three cheers for "rational dispute" -- it's not the spanner in the works that spells doom for our shared Liberal democracy, but exactly what makes it so great."

I'm all for rational dispute, but that is not what goes on in modern nation-states. I think you are confused about the conditions required for rational dispute.

"A society which begins with a priori theological principles (not quite what you've proposed, but I'll admit, I've got my suspicions) is doomed to blood-letting, eventually, both in theory and yes, in practice."

It is clear that you are oblivious to the real-world damage caused by liberalism.

zoogleplex: "I don't even think you need to use the words "noble activity," as you can just say "activity that is to the benefit of the entire group."

You want to develop a theory of the virtues that does not require you to distinguish the noble from the base? Good luck with that.

"peeping_Thomist, do you feel that your above-quoted "tradition of virtue" definition of "dignity" is a rational one? If not, why not?"

Yes, it is a rational one, but I do not expect many people who read mefi to accept it. I am a relativist about rationality but an absolutist about truth.

"It certainly seems to be simple and straightforward to me: essentially, asserting that all humans have potential value to the whole of humanity, and thus should be cared for by the rest of us."

Your words are there on my screen, and I am trying, but cannot assign any cognitive content to them. What "us," exactly, are you talking about?

"There certainly have been many things that we call "civilizations" in the past who have not believed this at all, where value of human life was determined arbitrarily by the opinions of some "elite" group that held some kind of power, whether violent or merely persuasive, over the larger population. That probably applies still today over large parts of the earth."

You mean there are parts of the world in which some innocent members of the human species are legally allowed to be brutally killed--dismembered, say--by more powerful members of the human species? You mean that kind of "civilization" that is really just a mask for barbarism? Yes, I'm very intimately familiar with parts of the earth like that. And so are you.

"Do liberal societies not try to help all their people live with the most acknowledgement of their dignity that they can?"

Liberal societies on principle refrain from allowing there to be any shared, rationally defensible account of the nature of human dignity. Beliefs about human dignity must remain essentially private.

ObHaggardfilter: What is hypocrisy?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:06 PM on November 16, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes Do you honestly wish to sing the praises of a mode of social life that has brought us to the brink (and in some cases pushed us over) of such catastrophes as global warming, nuclear winter, and killer nanorobots, and that has a long track record of such crimes against humanity and nature as the mass extinction of species, the wanton destruction of indigenous cultures, the slaughter of literally hundreds of millions on the killing fields, politically motivated famines and other forms of genocide, the domination of technology over every human value, the military-industrial complex, the globalized fast-food nation in which "meat science" replaces animal husbandry, and so on?

Yes. Genocide is not a failure of liberalism, but very much the victory of anti-liberal, short-sighted, and "perfectable" systems winning out (probably theological in your case, or in the important cases of Stalin or Hitler, fascism configured in highly religious themes, images, and terms.)

Again, please offer your alternative. You say you don't live "in your head," but once again you have failed to offer a viable alternative based on the whole of human experience.

And btw, what the hell are "killer nanorobots"?
posted by bardic at 4:25 PM on November 16, 2006

Do you honestly, and by this, bardic, I mean in your heart of hearts, not in your facade as mefite tough guy, believe that modernity is sustainable in the long run?

It's got more staying power than, say, the Catholic church. Again, now you're attempting to trash 300 years of human progress because it hasn't been progressive enough. So get out their peeping_Thomist, stop being such a negative nancy. If modernity fails (which it might, but I think it has at least four or five more centuries to go, and as mentioned previously, it won't be brought down under its own weight, but they the usual suspects -- religious intolerance, fascist tendencies, good ol' fashioned avarice) it will because of people like you who failed it.

Oh, that's a little hyperbolic I admit. But not nearly as hyperbolic as shrieking at me that because you and I have the right to vote, practice our religion, and conduct our personal lives in ways we see fit (within reason, Mill's Liberty Principle) we are all hopelessly doomed.

Again, stop avoiding the obvious question -- if modernity and liberalism have been so darn awful for you, if the apocalypse is coming in your opinion (certainly not mine -- life expectancies are higher than ever, and globalism (with some common-sense restraints) is a good thing for all people), please tell us where and when it's been better. The burden throughout this thread has been on you. And you can't give one, single counter-example. Not a single one. That's what this all comes down to, despite your rhetorical attempts to lard your inept sophistry down with nothing but obfuscation and occasional squeals of indignity.

I really do feel sorry for you. I haven't denied that there are problems in the world, but to not be able to recognize the benefits we share as inheritors of liberalism is both hard to believe and, frankly, assinine. Knowing nothing about you personally, I sincerely suggest you leave your house once in a while. Go meet some people. Go get a little sun. Kafka and Nietzsche are great, IMO, but try some Whitman.
posted by bardic at 4:38 PM on November 16, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes Anyway, to finally answer your question, I'll take China from 770 to 222 BC, Northern India from 240 to 550, Persia from 950 to 1191 or Paris from 1100 to 1277.

Oh snap, you did offer some alternatives. Interesting that as a Catholic, you'd be a heretic and killed in the first two (well, maybe just locked up forever) and in the third, you'd have a life expectancy of about 25 years.

But as long as we're throwing out ideals, I'd like to live on a moon of Saturn with a jetpack and an atheist sex-android. Make it so.
posted by bardic at 4:42 PM on November 16, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes You think National Socialism wasn't modern to its core?

I'm sorry, but as mentioned earlier you are the gift of nuttiness that keeps on giving. I present to mefi the most grandiose Godwinization of a thread ever. (That's already been Godwinned, but still.)
posted by bardic at 4:46 PM on November 16, 2006

p_T writes I still don't see that Haggard is a hypocrite.

How many cocks would he have to suck, how many acts of adultery, and how many injections of meth would it take before he was? While making millions of dollars preaching, daily, against these very things, and about the need for Christian morality in general.

See, this is what blows my mind about you -- you have the relative audacity to challenge the first principles of liberalism, which I admit is kind of an interesting theoretical exercise (in practice, we have plenty of examples of dictators who were happy to have apparatchiks like you do exactly this while in practice, a bunch of dudes polished their truncheons and jackboots down the street preparing for Kristalnacht). And it seems like one of your biggest beefs with liberalism is that, deep down, it's based on an "intuition" about human dignity rather than an a priori fact drawn from observable, objective theological principles. (It reminds me of the fact that Rorty always gets huffy whenever someone asks him what he thinks our "basic human nature" is. He doesn't, but for far different reasons.) So liberalism, in spite of the demonstrable benefits of longer lives, more stable democracies, and rights for women, to name three out of about 10,000, is a failure for you because it isn't esthetically pleasing, from a philosophical standpoint.

Such rigor in the face of us dirty librul atheists peeping_Thomist, such bravery to tell truth to the dirty hippies in power.

And yet, you're basically pulling a Bill Clinton and saying Haggard isn't a hypocrite.

At the end of the day, you really aren't about philosophical rigor at all. You just have a set of beliefs, i.e., an ideology based on a highly eccentric reading of your own Catholicism, and it helps you get through the day. That's fine with me, because we all do it. But again, your right to do this is a product of, hardly a challenge to, liberalism.

Oh, and this is precious as well -- peeping_Thomist writes (regarding metafilter) Yet it permits vile abuse of people with unpopular beliefs. Right after you stated nonchalantly that there are no such things as "universal human rights."

Your philosophy and theology is a dud, simply put.
posted by bardic at 5:07 PM on November 16, 2006

But in fact what is crucial is that on which the contending parties agree, namely that there are only two alternative modes of social life open to us, one in which the free and arbitrary choices of individuals are sovereign and one in which the bureaucracy is sovereign, precisely so that it may limit the free and abitrary choices of individuals.

our old friend, the fallacy of the excluded middle, rears its head ...

I'll take China from 770 to 222 BC,

the last couple of centuries are called "the warring states period" which must have been very pleasant to live through

Northern India from 240 to 550,

which fell to the huns ...

Persia from 950 to 1191

which "persia" are you talking about?

in any case, that didn't finish up real well, did it?

or Paris from 1100 to 1277.

because crusades and pointless skirmishes between nobles were so much fun ... and wait another few decades and you get the plague to deal with ... good times ...

of course, in your "taking" of these time periods, you assume that you would be a literate member of the ruling class instead of a peasant who would be fortunate to be alive at the age of 20 ... or 10 ... or 5 ... get real, guy ... we both worked in convenience stores in this era and according to my handy dandy career equivalence chart, that translates into being an illiterate shit-shoveler in the 13th century ...

that's wooden shovels, mind you ...

well, at least you've got a natural aptitude for it ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:46 PM on November 16, 2006

peeping_Thomist:
SBMike: "you've admitted that there's no rational basis for an a priori human dignity outside of a religious worldview,"

I have not.

Well, you said this:

The claim that individual human persons have dignity simply in virtue of being individual human persons, apart from any particular political or theological context, utterly lacks rational justification.

which seems remarkably similar.

I don't even know what you mean, since I don't know what a worldview is.

It's not a hard word to figure out. It's a view of the world. A religious worldview would be the way a religious person views the world. I would think that somebody who has read as much philosophy as you allegedly do would have enough of a grasp of the English language to be familiar with compound words and context clues, but wonders never cease, or as bardic would say, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

"I will say that while I agree with your normative conclusion, that the stronger members of society should devote resources to helping the less fortunate members,"

I have said no such thing. "Normative conclusion"? What the fuck are you talking about?


normative means relating to norms or standards, as opposed to formative which means relating to forms. Formative statements describe the way things are without judgement whereas normative statements are statements that make a judgement about the way things should or should not be. Your formative statement was that dignity is a natural, implicit, and universal trait of humanity. Your normative conclusion was that because of this, we should ensure that the stronger members of society help out the weaker members. In retrospect, it was confusing and a poor choice of words. I should have been clearer.

"dignity is a choice we make. We can choose to give it to each other and reap the benefits, or neglect it and suffer the consequences."

Whatever you are talking about (and I have no idea what it is), it is not dignity.

dignity - 1 : the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed

Worthy, honored, or esteemed. To me, these all seem like qualities that are entirely dependent on other people (or at least oneself; I'll grant that we can give ourselves dignity). It also seems like my above statement was entirely valid. We can bestow a state of worthiness on each other through our actions and attitudes. Humanity is full of examples of people bestowing this gift on each other, and people doing otherwise.

Now that you know what I was talking about, maybe you can respond to my points rather than nitpicking my diction. I'm not holding my breath.
posted by SBMike at 11:32 PM on November 16, 2006

There's no flesh left on this well-flayed deceased equine, guys: it's all bones now.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 AM on November 17, 2006

Yes, but there are 1,567 of them.
posted by caddis at 6:28 AM on November 17, 2006

Did someone mention bones?
posted by econous at 9:07 AM on November 17, 2006

"Perhaps you anticipate that when everything goes up in smoke, as any reasonable person can see will happen soon enough, the last remaining liberal-liberal can honestly say, as we descend back into darkness, "well, it was good while it lasted.""

Up in smoke? I think that's a low probability, but I do agree that things are going to change quite a lot over the next half-century, mostly because of much foolishness in how we've expended our allotment of cheap energy.

"But that is nonsense. It wasn't good while it lasted; it was absurd while it lasted."

Here we also are in some agreement, as I've looked at the overall behavior of humanity and boggled at some of the mindless stupidity in plain evidence. Wars and abject selfishness are completely counterproductive and anti-life, and I'm continually saddened that such stuff keeps happening.

However, there have also been many advances and improvements - but psychologically, humanity seems ill-equipped to use them effectively to make life better and richer for all, preferring to split into a what I see as few basic divisions which can be roughly described as the dominators, the domination-enablers, and the submissives (there are shades of all of these). These divisions come about by both active and passive means, with people participating both willingly and unwittingly.

"Every modern nation-state makes public policy decisions by putting a dollar value on human lives, and then crunching the numbers, even though every single one of us knows that there are some kinds of goods that do not have a price and cannot be quantified."

Which is of course deplorable, and is one of the things I look at with confusion and sadness, asking why this happens? But of course, it's all the the psychology.

I also agree with you that all these radical movements like Wahhabism are modern in nature.

We have found some common ground, excellent.

I should also say that I'm entirely uncomfortable with the fact that my relatively cushy Western lifestyle is completely dependent on other people in the world living in substantially poorer and usually exploited positions, but I'm generally at a loss as to how I can change that. You probably think I'm being unreflective because I have to let it go as is and try to live my life regardless, but believe me, I'm very aware of it.

"Anyway, to finally answer your question, I'll take China from 770 to 222 BC, Northern India from 240 to 550, Persia from 950 to 1191 or Paris from 1100 to 1277."

Weren't these all strictly hierarchical societies, ruled by a small (heavily armed and usually violent) elite over a large, completely disenfranchised peasant population, with perhaps a small "middle class" entirely comprised of merchants?

Let's see now. The thought that occurs to me is that in your view, humanity is observably not really psychologically capable of executing a true liberal society; that humanity requires a small and strong elite who understand and can reflect upon the absolute moral truth and can apply it to (and perhaps educate?) the greater masses of people over time in order to form a properly morally-educated populace, who will then all know their place and all work for the good of the whole? This is just a supposition, I'm not claiming this is your exact position, but am I getting closer?

Now, it may surprise you but I wouldn't disagree that humanity as a whole is not handling liberalism very well. However, what I understand of history is that installing a power elite to mete out morality to the masses doesn't hold up very well.

I'm not saying that such elite/subject societies don't come into being organically, because they often do. It goes to what I'm saying above about what I see as the dominant/enabler/submissive groups that people seem to naturally fall into. Maybe I should outline my thoughts about these divisions; keep in mind that these are very, very simplistic and I don't have time to get too deep about them...

The "dominants" are the people who believe they should rule, and have the power of personality to make others believe they are right about that, in most cases without resorting to direct physical threats. These are generally charismatic, persuasive people with skill at manipulating people. They're excellent salesmen, basically.

The "enablers" are the people who on the inside believe they should rule, but do not have the power of personality to make others accede to their will without threatening or actually applying violence. People like this are usually known as bullies. On the inside they feel relatively powerless, and often view those they see as more powerful with worshipful fear, while attempting to dominate anyone who they see as weaker than they are or easily frightened.

The "submissives" are obviously people who these other two are able to persuade or cow into allowing themselves to be dominated. This submissiveness has a wide spectrum; it can go from people who truly are submissive and deeply desire someone to tell them what to do and control their lives entirely, to people who are generally unconcerned with how their societal hierarchy functions and just want to be left alone. This is by far the largest group, probably outnumbering the other two by thousands, even tens of thousands to one.

So, these societies you'd "take" seem to be ones that are rooted in this observable set of human behaviors - and of course, these same behaviors are continuing today. The dominators are still squabbling with each other in the names of their own egoes, pitting their enablers against each other in lethal combat, in which submissives get caught up as cannon fodder or "collateral damage," and the general misery of humanity continues. Each "elite" group of dominators claims its own moral or ideological superiority, and attempts to impose it on others by control via various means of leverage, or by force - and often uses that supposed moral superiority as an excuse to attack other "rival" groups or nations, when the real reason is to take their riches and resources, and extend their ego domination over more people. N.B. I am not in any way excluding the United States from this. It applies to all nations currently existing on earth, "liberal" or otherwise.

Also, as I recall in all of these societies, women were non-people, chattel property. Perhaps a few "noblewomen" had some degree of freedom, but the rest were completely without rights.

Now, again, I see these sort of "organic" human divisions happening all over. People seem to fall fairly readily into these power relationships, on an individual, person-to-person basis as well as in large groups. It seems as if it's a "natural" way for people to be.

That doesn't make it right, or good for us, however.

(zoogleplex) "I don't even think you need to use the words "noble activity," as you can just say "activity that is to the benefit of the entire group."

(p_T)"You want to develop a theory of the virtues that does not require you to distinguish the noble from the base? Good luck with that."

Ah, that's not what I said. Rather, I'm saying that instead of the terms "noble" and "base," which have direct psychological connotations, we substitute "that activity which is to the benefit of the group as a whole and/or to everyone in the group individually (not precisely the same thing)" for "noble," and "activity which, though possibly immediately beneficial to an individual or small subgroup, is detrimental to the group as a whole or to other individuals/subgroups therein" for "base." Okay, these substitutions are a mouthful, but "noble" and "base" need to be defined as concretely and measurably as possible.

"(zoogleplex)"It certainly seems to be simple and straightforward to me: essentially, asserting that all humans have potential value to the whole of humanity, and thus should be cared for by the rest of us."

(p_T)"Your words are there on my screen, and I am trying, but cannot assign any cognitive content to them. What "us," exactly, are you talking about?"

The entirety of the human race. The people of which, you have rightly pointed out, have a lot more in common than they have in opposition. So, to restate:

To assign personal human dignity in a non-religious sense, we can assert that each individual person has potential value to the whole of humanity, and therefore, even if they make no visible, tangible contribution, they should be cared for by the whole of humanity.

And we see in practice every day how people who are abandoned, or even perceive themselves to be abandoned by their family, locality, general society, nation or the whole of humanity often act in direct detriment to any and all of these bodies. The saying "everyone does better when everyone does better" applies, as people who feel disenfranchised and worthless often lash out violently against others. As I said, submissiveness has a spectrum, and many people who know they are under domination resent it greatly. They can become enablers or even a new group of dominators if they rebel strongly enough, as the aftermath of the French Revolution, Russian Revolution or some aspects of Cromwell's rule in England show.

So.

It seems to me like the kind of society you would accept would be just another rehash of the same old hierarchichal domination of the "betters" over the "unwashed," even if applied at a local community basis. Your constant referral to the doctrines of Catholicism seems to reinforce my perception, as from the outside I see the Catholic Church, while having contributed much to humanity, as being one of these egotistical hierarchies which once wielded great dominance and power over millions, and is still acting, in its collective psychology, like the Empire it once was.

Whereas I look at the situation and try to imagine some new way of defeating what I see as some highly counterproductive psychology that has some very, very old evolutionary roots. Any new way would have to reject Machiavellian manipulation, power psychology, egotistical hierarchy and conflict resolution through violence to have any chance of changing things, because the hierarchical structure is inherently corrupting and corruptible. Our current collective psychology winds up repeating the same old abusive pattern again and again.

Perhaps I've found a way to state my position vs. yours re liberalism. As I understand it, you feel that liberalism is an irrational philosophy, or basis for a society. I would state my thought as liberalism is a rational idea, philosophy, basis for society, but that humans have so far not been able to execute it rationally, and have made something of a mess of things.

Mind you, I don't think domination hierarchies are rational, either. Perhaps they are effective and well-ordered, and maybe even realistic in terms of how human psychology currently works, but they are not rational in terms of the well-being of humanity, as they always require the subjugation of the majority and engender the corruption of the elites, which always results in eventual rebellion and repetition of the pattern.

I admit I'm again at a loss so far as to how to attack the problem. Changing the root psychology of large and diverse groups of people is a daunting task, to understate grandly. So far it's only possible in the realm of science fiction.

However, I think it's of note that the United States is an attempt, however flawed and stumbling, to do exactly that. It appears to be failing, for the same reasons everything else in the past has, but I'm not giving up on it yet.

I point out again, as have the others in this thread, that it's only because of this Experiment, p_T, that you have the freedom to think and speak and defend yourself as you do. From my point of view, you seem unappreciative, especially as others have pointed out that in the regimes you've held up as examples, you would never have had such freedom unless you were lucky enough to be born to the "right" people.

I am really trying to understand where you're coming from, so I don't intend this statement of my position to be an attempt to change your mind or attempt dominance in any way.

Oh. Yeah, on that New Advent page you link, this definition of hypocrisy appears:

"Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately to the scope of this article, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion."

So then, you don't feel that hiding a homosexual affair while preaching to millions that such an affair is a horrible sin against God and those who perpetrate it should be punished is hypocritical?

I could see that IF and ONLY if he was simultaneously admitting that he was having the affair at the same time. By not admitting such, he is by implication holding himself up as an example of a person who commits no such sin, which I would call "putting forward a false appearance of virtue."

Note that I think churches like Ted's are also clear and obvious examples of egotistical hierarchies of dominators, enablers and submissives... as, really, the vast majority of any human hierarchy is. Check out your local school board!
posted by zoogleplex at 1:06 PM on November 17, 2006

bardic: "peeping_Thomist writes Do you honestly wish to sing the praises of a mode of social life that has brought us to the brink (and in some cases pushed us over) of such catastrophes as global warming, nuclear winter, and killer nanorobots, and that has a long track record of such crimes against humanity and nature as the mass extinction of species, the wanton destruction of indigenous cultures, the slaughter of literally hundreds of millions on the killing fields, politically motivated famines and other forms of genocide, the domination of technology over every human value, the military-industrial complex, the globalized fast-food nation in which "meat science" replaces animal husbandry, and so on?

Yes."

I see you are a true believer. The crimes and calamities of liberalism cannot shake your commitment. You are prepared to allow--to welcome!--the cessation of life on earth if that is the cost of maintaining to the bitter end the triumph of the human spirit that is bureaucratic individualism. Your zeal for The Cause is very impressive, Comrade bardic!

"Genocide is not a failure of liberalism, but very much the victory of anti-liberal, short-sighted, and "perfectable" systems winning out"

Because societies shaped by bureaucratic individualism never commit genocide. Oh, wait, I forgot: they do! My bad.

"Again, please offer your alternative."

"Alternative" in what sense? The monasteries were only in a peculiar and limited sense an "alternative" to the Roman empire. They preserved as much as possible of what they judged worth preserving from a culture that was collapsing, but they did not answer the same question to which the Roman empire had previously been an answer.

You apparently want me to identify some modern nation-state that could be transformed, as a political unit, into something tolerable. There is no way to do that. Every attempt to do so, such as the French Revolution or the various communist revolutions, or Wahabbism, invariably resulted in terrorism or totalitarianism or both, but not in a sustainable, large-scale alternative to bureaucratic individualism. It looks like liberalism will have to play itself out. It does not follow that reasonable people should confuse the survival of liberalism with the survival of civilization.

"you have failed to offer a viable alternative based on the whole of human experience."

Promoting local forms of community is the only reasonable thing to do at this point, and is the only recommendation I have ever made as regards "alternatives" to bureaucratic individualism. Hence my vote against alcohol sales in my city. We won again, by the way--those fucking out-of-state carpetbaggers keep funding ballot initiatives in all the local dry cities, and every two years they gain one or two new wet cities. Community-undermining bastards!

"And btw, what the hell are "killer nanorobots"?"

Bill Joy made a big splash a few years ago raising serious concerns about the dangers of nanotechnology. What amazed him is that many people who work in this area concede that the dangers are very real, but plan to continue nanotechnology research anyway. Since the dangers are maximally bad--the complete erasure of organic life from the planet--it's pretty amazing that they are going ahead with it anyway. But "going ahead anyway" is what liberalism does, and what it will always do, at least until the gears grind to a halt and we see the equivalent of the collapse of the Roman empire.

The long-term survival of humanity will be possible only if liberalism grinds to a halt before it can destroy the planet via runaway global warming, or ecosystem collapse from loss of biodiversity, or a biotech disaster through genetic engineering, or a particle accelerator mishap that creates a subatomic black hole and swallows the planet, or killer nanorobots, or the complete loss of human fertility due to dioxins, or nuclear winter, or bioweapons that get out of control, or killer (regular, non-nano) robots, or whatever. That you do not see that these grave threats to life on earth are directly linked to, and provide compelling evidence against the reasonableness of, your own deepest political commitments is disheartening.

It is fair to say that I hope the crimes of bureaucratic individualism cause it to collapse before its follies destroy life on earth.

bardic: "If modernity fails [...] it won't be brought down under its own weight, but by the usual suspects -- religious intolerance, fascist tendencies, good ol' fashioned avarice [...]"

Liberal avarice is not old fashioned. It took significant conceptual transformations extended over hundreds of years to give birth to the distinctively modern concept of avarice to which you casually refer as "ol' fashioned".

The crucial moment in the transition was when the ancient and Christian vice of pleonexia was transformed into the very definition of the human condition. You put the point quite well earlier in this thread when you said that liberalism "begins from the proposition that people will always argue for things based on brute self-interest. Liberal democracy doesn't set out to erase brute self-interest, but rather to curb it." Pleonexia, once "curbed" by liberalism, is no longer regarded by liberals as a vice, but rather becomes the distinctively modern virtue of reasonable (i.e., curbed-by-liberalism) acquisitiveness.

Liberalism-curbed pleonexia is the engine driving every liberal economy. The transformation of pleonexia from ancient and Christian vice to liberal virtue was not accomplished overnight. Nor was the associated transformation of the Christian vice of pride into the liberal virtue of self-respect. In liberal societies, self-respecting people work with great industry to gratify their liberalism-curbed acquisitiveness. This is how they know they are decent. Liberal citizens fall into avarice when their efforts to gratify their aquisitiveness violate the requirements of liberalism.

Please note that there is no way to translate any of these statements about "self-respect" and "curbed self-interest" into terms intelligible within the tradition of the virtues, without turning each statement into paradigmatic examples of falsehood and error.

"I haven't denied that there are problems in the world,"

But I am not talking about problems "in the world". I am talking about problems directly caused by your own deepest political assumptions as those assumptions have been at work "in the world" over the past few hundred years. These problems are not accidentally related to bureaucratic individualism.

You are understandably eager to point out problems internal to the Catholic tradition. I acknowledge those problems and take personal responsibility for them. So, when do you plan to take personal responsibility for the deleterious large-scale effects of your political views "in the world"?

bardic: "p_T writes I still don't see that Haggard is a hypocrite.

How many cocks would he have to suck, how many acts of adultery, and how many injections of meth would it take before he was? While making millions of dollars preaching, daily, against these very things, and about the need for Christian morality in general."

I do not know, in part because I do not yet have a clear understanding of hypocrisy, but mostly because the answer in this particular case depends on things the public does not yet know and probably will never know. If Haggard did not really believe that same-sex activity is wrong, but taught that it is wrong in order to make money from people he regarded as gullible rubes, he was a hypocrite. But so far that does not sound like what was going on. From the interviews I have seen with Mike Jones, it sounds like Haggard visited Jones while in a state of extreme sexual tension, and left as soon as they were done with their business, without saying anything.

The claim, implicit in your question, that repeatedly doing a certain kind of act is conclusive proof that you do not "really" believe it is wrong strikes me (and pretty much every reputable moral philosopher who has ever written on the topic) as, well, stupid. I think that if a person keeps doing a certain kind of act, and never takes any steps to stop doing it, but still says that he or she thinks it is wrong, then at some point it becomes reasonable to think he or she does not really believe it is wrong. But I'd be willing to bet that Haggard did all sorts of little things to stop himself from acting out again. For example, it would not at all surprise me to learn that he threw away Jones's phone number every time they had sex, and had to get a newspaper to find the ad with the number, or call directory assistance, each time he wanted to contact Jones again. Until eventually he realized that he knew the number by heart and didn't need to go looking for it each time. Whereas if he were a hypocrite, he would have just filed the number away without a second thought.

"liberalism, in spite of the demonstrable benefits of longer lives, more stable democracies, and rights for women, to name three out of about 10,000, is a failure for you because it isn't esthetically pleasing, from a philosophical standpoint."

Bullshit. (By the way, are you channeling Charles Larmore?)

"At the end of the day, you really aren't about philosophical rigor at all. You just have a set of beliefs, i.e., an ideology based on a highly eccentric reading of your own Catholicism,"

What nonsense. In any case, my reading of the Catholic tradition is not "highly eccentric"; it's one of the many varieties of contemporary Catholic philosophy and theology now competing to demonstrate their rational superiority over rivals within the Catholic tradition as well as the Catholic tradition's rational superiority over its rivals. Because that is what healthy traditions do, as opposed to degenerating into intuitionism and emotivism, as liberalism has done.

"Oh, and this is precious as well -- peeping_Thomist writes (regarding metafilter) Yet it permits vile abuse of people with unpopular beliefs. Right after you stated nonchalantly that there are no such things as "universal human rights.""

Yes, and? Apparently you see a contradiction there. Perhaps you could spell out what you think the contradiction is.

"Your philosophy and theology is a dud, simply put."

I assume that what makes this so obvious to you is the fact that my philosophy and theology cannot be made to appear rationally compelling when presented in sound-bite form on a weblog, for you show little evidence of ever having grappled in any serious way with non-liberal thought beyond the sound-bite level. I've mentioned some of the liberal theorists I've studied. Yes, I've read Habermas, too, along with the other liberal theorist we've named so far in this thread. So, which non-liberal theorists have you read, and at what level of detail have you studied them?

Has it occurred to you that one of the most important regulative functions of contemporary moral discourse is the drastic restrictions it places on what can intelligibly be said? For nearly every statement you wish to affirm (the sort of statement with which typical mefi readers grunt agreement), in order to present my rebuttal I must write mini-treatises explaining why what you have said cannot be directly translated into any idiom I am willing to accept. And if I try to articulate a counterclaim, that will involve translating it into terms you can understand, and it will be subject to systematic misinterpretation--assuming you can stop skimming the text long enough to bother coming up with a misinterpretation. This predicament is no accident; moral vocabularies develop in order to allow certain things to be said easily, and to prevent other things from being said at all. But the fact that these things cannot be easily said must not be allowed to count as evidence that they are stupid, or obviously false, or insane.

Only a fool would assume that an apparently absurd statement by an obviously intelligent person is in fact absurd. Sometimes, of course, what seems absurd turns out to be absurd, and the person who is obviously intelligent turns out to be mad as well as intelligent. But unless you are prepared to declare all non-liberal thought insane, you owe it to yourself to come to grips with the fact that weblogs simply are not a fruitful venue for assessing the claims to rational justification of modes of moral thought that initially appear absurd.

pyramid termite: "But in fact what is crucial is that on which the contending parties agree, namely that there are only two alternative modes of social life open to us, one in which the free and arbitrary choices of individuals are sovereign and one in which the bureaucracy is sovereign, precisely so that it may limit the free and abitrary choices of individuals.

our old friend, the fallacy of the excluded middle, rears its head ..."

You realize, I assume, that MacIntyre in this passage is making the point that conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals commit the fallacy of the excluded middle, and is not committing it himself.

SBMike: "The claim that individual human persons have dignity simply in virtue of being individual human persons, apart from any particular political or theological context, utterly lacks rational justification.

which seems remarkably similar."

That is similar to what you said only if you assume that "particular political context" is equivalent to "particular theological context" -- or else don't understand how "or" works.

I don't even know what you mean, since I don't know what a worldview is.

[a worldview is] a view of the world.

That may sound plausible to you, but it is a very controversial claim in the context of contemporary philosophy. Rorty, for example, would never agree with you.

"normative means relating to norms or standards, as opposed to formative which means relating to forms. Formative statements describe the way things are without judgement whereas normative statements are statements that make a judgement about the way things should or should not be."

I repudiate this distinction. The supposed "fact/value" gap, to which you are making appeal, is one of the hoariest chestnuts in all of ethics. The authority of the dictionary cannot settle a substantive philosophical question such as this.

"Your formative statement was that dignity is a natural, implicit, and universal trait of humanity."

Bullshit. I said no such thing, and would never say such a thing.

"Your normative conclusion was that because of this, we should ensure that the stronger members of society help out the weaker members."

Again, bullshit. And what "we" do you fancy you and I are both part of, SBMike? And if the answer is "humanity," do I sound to you like someone who has views about what "humanity" should do?

"maybe you can respond to my points rather than nitpicking my diction."

There is no easy way to separate the points from the diction. Note that each time you try to restate to me what I have said, I repudiate it as something I have not said and would never say. The key to fruitful conversation is being able to say back to a person what he or she has said, in such a way that he or she is able to recognize it as what he or she originally said. Sometimes, if you are lucky, you find a way say it back in a way that he or she can recognize as a better way of saying what they meant to say. But until you can say back to people what they have said, which you so far haven't been able to do, there's not much of a conversation going on.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:34 PM on November 17, 2006

You realize, I assume, that MacIntyre in this passage is making the point that conservative liberals, liberal liberals, and radical liberals commit the fallacy of the excluded middle, and is not committing it himself.

the more intelligent of them do not, and therefore it is a false statement ... and as far as your statements about "bureaucratic individualism" are concerned, i defy you to find ANY civilization where bureaucracies and individuals were not an axis of conflict ...

The crucial moment in the transition was when the ancient and Christian vice of pleonexia was transformed into the very definition of the human condition.

name me a society where pleonexia hasn't been a problem ... it is undeniably an aspect of the human condition, and as such, must be dealt with

i'm afraid at the end of the day, your critique of liberalism and civilization is nothing more than an expression of the belief that mankind has fallen from grace and is unable to find perfection (or even sufficiency) in himself or his institutions without divine guidance ...

that is, assuming that such ideas as human dignity and human rights weren't, in part, divinely inspired ...

i get the impression that what you'd really like to do is do away with civilization altogether and go back to a state of savage nobility where hunter gatherers live simply and follow the doctrines of the church as the one remnant of society worth conserving

it's hard for me to imagine what other kind of society would meet your standards of acceptability ...

but then, i always thought his kingdom wasn't of this world, anyway ... so what did you expect?

what we have seems to be the best we can do so far ... perhaps we can do better ... i've seen you offer nothing towards that goal ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:12 PM on November 17, 2006

one more thing


I assume that what makes this so obvious to you is the fact that my philosophy and theology cannot be made to appear rationally compelling when presented in sound-bite form on a weblog,

1) i hardly think your long posts qualify as sound bites

2) we don't seem to have a problem expressing and explaining ourselves here

3) if we do not accept your assumptions, then there is no way you can make anything you say rationally compelling to us, no matter what form or forum you put them in ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:17 PM on November 17, 2006

yawn
posted by SBMike at 8:52 PM on November 17, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes I see you are a true believer. The crimes and calamities of liberalism cannot shake your commitment. You are prepared to allow--to welcome!--the cessation of life on earth if that is the cost of maintaining to the bitter end the triumph of the human spirit that is bureaucratic individualism. Your zeal for The Cause is very impressive, Comrade bardic!

Awesome. Thank you peeping_Thomist for ensuring that you'll never be taken seriously again here on mefi.

And congrats on your voting down the implementation of alcohol sales.

Voting.

Nuff said.
posted by bardic at 4:42 AM on November 18, 2006

Minister’s Own Rules Sealed His Fate.
posted by ericb at 11:29 AM on November 18, 2006

LGBT Christians reach out to Ted Haggard
posted by Robert Angelo at 2:01 PM on November 18, 2006

zoogleplex: "Up in smoke? I think that's a low probability,"

Any one doomsday scenario has a low probability, but probabilities add up, and the rate at which bureaucratic individualism creates plausible new doomsday scenarios keeps increasing. Let's all hope you are right, as life on earth depends on it.

""Every modern nation-state makes public policy decisions by putting a dollar value on human lives, and then crunching the numbers, even though every single one of us knows that there are some kinds of goods that do not have a price and cannot be quantified." Which is of course deplorable, and is one of the things I look at with confusion and sadness, asking why this happens? But of course, it's all in the psychology."

I agree, but the psychology in turn is all (well, OK, largely) in the sociology! Let me elaborate: Bureaucratic individualism resulted from the dual rejection, at the start of modernity, of social hierarchy (as oppressive) and rational teleology (as superstitious). From these two rejections there also emerged, at the same time as bureaucratic individualism, a new kind of human being: the atomic individual. Your efforts to correlate the manifest absurdities of bureaucratic individualism with the psychological constitution of the atomic individual are quite legitimate, and to an extent insightful. Your account, however, remains incomplete until you explore the sociology underlying the psychology.

"I should also say that I'm entirely uncomfortable with the fact that my relatively cushy Western lifestyle is completely dependent on other people in the world living in substantially poorer and usually exploited positions, but I'm generally at a loss as to how I can change that."

One thing you might do is to stop identifying the survival of civilization with the survival of bureaucratic individualism. That may open up a wider range of options when you are deliberating about what to do.

"You probably think I'm being unreflective because I have to let it go as is and try to live my life regardless, but believe me, I'm very aware of it."

I do not think you are unreflective; I think you lack some resources you would need for fruitful reflection. Our culture teaches us to accept, as an unquestioned first principle, that all societies are, ontologically, collections of "individuals" whose arbitrary, capricious, criterionless choices must be regulated by external principles if anarchy is to be avoided. This sets up the dynamic of "bureaucracy" versus "individualism". Most modern people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there could be alternatives to this conflict between bureaucracy and the individual, but in fact this is not a universal truth about human beings as such; it is a distinctively modern way of thinking about how human persons are members of human communities.

"Weren't these all strictly hierarchical societies,"

The self always locates itself in relation to social hierarchy. In our culture we pride ourselves on having rejected social hierarchy, but there has never been a society that was not hierarchical. Ours is no exception.

"The thought that occurs to me is that in your view, humanity is observably not really psychologically capable of executing a true liberal society;"

Psychological resources are not a fixed quantity; different modes of social life provide persons with different resources for self-constitution. The resources for self-constitution afforded by bureaucratic individualism do not allow the self to rise above criterionless choice-making. Charles Taylor's _Sources of the Self_ does a wonderful job of exploring the origins of modern selfhood.

"that humanity requires a small and strong elite who understand and can reflect upon the absolute moral truth and can apply it to (and perhaps educate?) the greater masses of people over time in order to form a properly morally-educated populace, who will then all know their place and all work for the good of the whole?"

That's not my view. What you describe here is ahistorical, and makes it sound as though "absolute moral truth" were something we in principle could have access to apart from a well-ordered community embedded in history. It was not possible to recognize this problem before the emergence of historical consciousness in the 19th century. Aristotle, for example, honestly believed that a properly "noetic" grasp of first principles was achievable. Today we have a much better understanding of why he was mistaken about that, and of how elite knowledge is always tethered to particular communities.

(This is why it was too glib of me to reply to bardic's challenge by naming specific times and places. What historical consciousness adds--and takes away--is important enough that I should have resisted the temptation to imagine "going back" to some earlier social order, since it could not be "me" who thus went back.)

"installing a power elite to mete out morality to the masses doesn't hold up very well."

I agree with that, but it also is not what I would propose.

"The dominators are still squabbling with each other in the names of their own egoes, pitting their enablers against each other in lethal combat, in which submissives get caught up as cannon fodder or "collateral damage," and the general misery of humanity continues. [...] Now, again, I see these sort of "organic" human divisions happening all over. People seem to fall fairly readily into these power relationships, on an individual, person-to-person basis as well as in large groups. It seems as if it's a "natural" way for people to be."

I hear what you are saying and do not dismiss it. Power is a very important topic, and very complicated. Whether the use of power can ever be rationally justified, and if so when, seem to me the central political questions. There are no once-and-for-all answers.

It amazes me how many defenders of liberalism (though perhaps not you) honestly believe that they are less oppressed by power than were members of pre-modern societies. If nothing else, Foucault is good for showing how power grids become ever more fine-grained over time. Most people in most of the pre-modern societies to which so many of the contributors to this thread feel smugly superior had a degree of control over the everyday details of their own lives that we can only dream of today. As we rapidly descend into the 24/7 panopticon, it is somewhat comical to be lectured about oppression by defenders of bureaucratic individualism.

"I'm saying that instead of the terms "noble" and "base," which have direct psychological connotations, we substitute "that activity which is to the benefit of the group as a whole and/or to everyone in the group individually (not precisely the same thing)" for "noble," and "activity which, though possibly immediately beneficial to an individual or small subgroup, is detrimental to the group as a whole or to other individuals/subgroups therein" for "base." Okay, these substitutions are a mouthful, but "noble" and "base" need to be defined as concretely and measurably as possible."

That defers the problem for only a little while, because you still will eventually have to put forward an account of what is a benefit and what is a harm, and that account is something about which (minimally) reasonable people will disagree. So in the end, you're still going to have to advance a substantive distinction between the noble and the base.

"each individual person has potential value to the whole of humanity, and therefore, even if they make no visible, tangible contribution, they should be cared for by the whole of humanity."

I don't see it. In virtue of what does each individual have potential value to the whole of humanity?

"It seems to me like the kind of society you would accept would be just another rehash of the same old hierarchichal domination of the "betters" over the "unwashed," even if applied at a local community basis."

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what you are rejecting. Keep in mind the distinction between master and apprentice, which is found in every sufficiently complex practice. Master/apprentice is a hierarchical distinction, but it isn't domination in the sense you seem to have in mind. In any case, the distinction between master and apprentice is not a distinction between "betters" and "unwashed".

"Your constant referral to the doctrines of Catholicism seems to reinforce my perception, as from the outside I see the Catholic Church, while having contributed much to humanity, as being one of these egotistical hierarchies which once wielded great dominance and power over millions, and is still acting, in its collective psychology, like the Empire it once was."

There's obviously truth in what you say, but not the whole truth.

"Any new way would have to reject Machiavellian manipulation, power psychology, egotistical hierarchy and conflict resolution through violence to have any chance of changing things, because the hierarchical structure is inherently corrupting and corruptible. Our current collective psychology winds up repeating the same old abusive pattern again and again."

There is no alternative to hierarchical structure.

"As I understand it, you feel that liberalism is an irrational philosophy, or basis for a society. I would state my thought as liberalism is a rational idea, philosophy, basis for society, but that humans have so far not been able to execute it rationally, and have made something of a mess of things."

I would say that "rational" implies that it makes sense in a well-ordered community. Liberalism isn't rational in that sense. I don't see any advantage to claiming that liberalism is "rational" but doesn't work. If it doesn't work, it isn't rational. But at least we both agree that it doesn't work. That's something.

"So then, you don't feel that hiding a homosexual affair while preaching to millions that such an affair is a horrible sin against God and those who perpetrate it should be punished is hypocritical?"

Yes, in a sense. There's certainly a sense in which he was pretending to be something he wasn't, which we can call hypocrisy. But usually we reserve the word "hypocrisy" for people who say they believe something but do not really believe it. I don't see compelling reasons to think Haggard didn't really believe that what he did with Jones was wrong. And I've been assuming that that is what's at issue in the disagreement over whether the term "hypocrisy" is appropriate.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:38 PM on November 20, 2006

pyramid termite: "your critique of liberalism and civilization is nothing more than an expression of the belief that mankind has fallen from grace and is unable to find perfection (or even sufficiency) in himself or his institutions without divine guidance ..."

That came out of left field!

I've always heard that it was liberalism that was based on the doctrine of a fall, because liberalism assumes that people cannot reasonably agree about substantive questions regarding the human good, whereas pre-modern social orders were optimistic in assuming that human beings can agree about such things.

"i get the impression that what you'd really like to do is do away with civilization altogether and go back to a state of savage nobility where hunter gatherers live simply and follow the doctrines of the church as the one remnant of society worth conserving"

The "impression" you "got" from what I said has little to do with what I said.

pyramid termite: "1) i hardly think your long posts qualify as sound bites"

And yet that is what they are.

"2) we don't seem to have a problem expressing and explaining ourselves here"

Of course not. The very language you speak has all your substantial assumptions built into it, whereas I have to work with forms of words that undermine at every turn what I am trying to say.

"3) if we do not accept your assumptions, then there is no way you can make anything you say rationally compelling to us, no matter what form or forum you put them in ..."

Part of learning to navigate a new kind of forum is learning how to provisionally accept the reigning assumptions, and hence it becomes possible to recognize at least a provisional kind of rational compulsion. "Given the nonsense these strange people believe, N. just made a rationally compelling point." That's what allows me to recognize the achievement of someone like Rawls even though I completely disagree with him.

bardic: "Thank you peeping_Thomist for ensuring that you'll never be taken seriously again here on mefi."

Again? Did you really say "again"?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:18 PM on November 20, 2006

That came out of left field!

no, actually, it came out of sunday bible class in st jerome's

I've always heard that it was liberalism that was based on the doctrine of a fall

and i'd always heard that it was christianity and catholicism that were based on that doctrine, (among other things) ... i even heard it from father huhn

but this is silly ... you don't see a solution in liberalism, or bureaucratic individualism and yet you don't seem to see one in what the catholic church might have to suggest

you really are lost ...

liberalism assumes that people cannot reasonably agree about substantive questions regarding the human good

assumption or mere observation?

whereas pre-modern social orders were optimistic in assuming that human beings can agree about such things.

do you mean to say that there were no conflicts in pre-modern social orders?

The "impression" you "got" from what I said has little to do with what I said.

perhaps not, but then you have a habit of leaving much unsaid

The very language you speak has all your substantial assumptions built into it, whereas I have to work with forms of words that undermine at every turn what I am trying to say.

you've made huge assumptions there about language and my relationship with it that i don't care to argue ... and it would seem more important that you continue with your struggle with the language and not concern yourself over mine

we are using the same language so you cannot claim disadvantage due to externalities ...

Part of learning to navigate a new kind of forum is learning how to provisionally accept the reigning assumptions, and hence it becomes possible to recognize at least a provisional kind of rational compulsion.

except that you have only demonstrated an understanding of what you think our assumptions are ... and, (this is your major problem), you've yet to explain what yours are

and ...

There is no alternative to hierarchical structure.

however, we are quite limited in our understanding of what hierarchical structures can be ... and in fact, it is possible to have hierarchies whose structures are not totally perceivable to any of the participants ... just because you cannot see a traditional hierarchy does not mean that some kind of hierarchy does not exist
posted by pyramid termite at 2:43 PM on November 20, 2006

pyramid termite: "liberalism assumes that people cannot reasonably agree about substantive questions regarding the human good

assumption or mere observation?"

It is the starting point. bardic had that right.

"do you mean to say that there were no conflicts in pre-modern social orders?"

No.

Question: since that is an obviously absurd claim, why would you think it might be something I'd say?

"we are using the same language so you cannot claim disadvantage due to externalities ..."

Bullshit. The language we are speaking, and the forum in which we are speaking it, both have your substantive political views built into them as unspoken assumptions. Your contention that we are both "equally" using the same language, and that therefore I am at no disadvantage, is as offensive as telling the Jews who were forced to engage in medieval disputations that they could not reasonably "claim disadvantage due to externalities" because the formal rules of disputation were scrupulously followed. By your reasoning, we should say that the Jews lost those disputations fair and square, since both sides were required to follow the same rules!

I must either use certain words in bad faith (words such as "moral" and "right"), or else use clumsy circumlocutions and issue elaborate explanations of my peculiar usage.

"except that you have only demonstrated an understanding of what you think our assumptions are ... and, (this is your major problem), you've yet to explain what yours are"

Yes. As I've repeatedly said, this is not an appropriate forum for defending the rational superiority of the Catholic tradition.

"and in fact, it is possible to have hierarchies whose structures are not totally perceivable to any of the participants ... just because you cannot see a traditional hierarchy does not mean that some kind of hierarchy does not exist"

No shit, Sherlock. That was my point. We live in a society that claims to have rejected social hierarchy, but any sociologist can tell you that this is an outright lie. Doesn't it bother any of you liberals just a little bit that there is a lie right at the heart of your social order?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:48 PM on November 20, 2006

"There is no alternative to hierarchical structure."

I'd also like to respond to this, as it was the strongest "jump out" for me from reading the post, first by pointing out that this is an "absolute" statement which may not actually be true. We may just not be using our imaginations and creativity well enough, or perhaps our imaginations are not sufficiently advanced to come up with an alternative (which I doubt).

It certainly may be true in the practical sense at current level of human development, which I think is likely, and I can accept it in that context - but not as an axiom.

I mentioned in my above post that hierarchichal structure is inherently corruptible and corrupting, which I believe is true in every instance where humans are involved in a hierarchy. Therefore, it seems clear that if we cannot avoid employing a hierarchichal societal structure, one thing we should work as hard as possible toward is a hierarchical structure that is as difficult as possible to corrupt by its members, and also in which we reduce as much as possible its tendency to corrupt its members.

Heh... nobody said fixing things would be easy...

Actually, that's a large part of the thought basis for the US Government. It's the whole point of the "checks and balances," having the three branches - three separate hierarchies with some differing and some overlapping authority - to govern each other, with the people hopefully watchdogging the government and exercising their voting power to add another layer of corruption resistance.

This was created in response to the traditional aristocratic/feudal system where the entire society is arranged in one single essential core hierarchy, which was and is seen, I believe correctly, as inherently too limiting and wasteful of human potential, with people mostly restricted to hereditary classes, as well as far, far too easy for a few people, or even only one person, to corrupt. And of course, little imagination was applied to coming up with any other alternative method of life and government.

In today's modern liberal Western society, we of course (as you point out) still have social hierarchy, but what we have is a fairly large number of different hierarchies which overlap and conflict to varying degrees, often overlapping and conflicting simultaneously. There are hierarchies of wealth, beauty, education, intelligence, physical prowess, cunning, sexuality, politics... and dozens more. It's certainly confusing sometimes; we've replaced simpler heirarchical structures with some far more complex ones.

Is it visibly well-ordered? No. But it is not random, not totally chaotic. There is still a great deal of order in things, even if it seems confusing. It's just more complex and requires a greater effort to "know one's place," as it were.

I don't see this as a bad thing. It's just a greater challenge to marshal societal forces, a greater challenge to find areas of common thought and action. Also, since we've been going along for several hundred years with this new kind of paradigm, a "fragmentation" of previous hierarchy if you will, without actually destroying ourselves, I think that what pyramid termite points out is valid: there is still an overarching ordering process or hierarchy operating to moderate the apparent chaos. It's just not clearly visible, because we're sitting inside of it and we don't have all the information. It may in fact be a moral and/or ethical process, which may or may not be influenced by religious thought.

The fact that a number of nations who have been in constant and sometimes bitter political conflict for more than half a century, and which possess the means to annihilate each other, have not actually done so, invites some close scrutiny, I should think. If Western (indeed, human) society were truly chaotic and driven by utterly selfish "atomic" individual whim (pun somewhat intended), one would think that nukes would have been used many times since 1945. Somehow they have always been avoided, even though we've had some very scary moments indeed.

I'd venture to guess that if either side had had such weapons during the Crusades, they would have shown little restraint. Actually I don't have to guess; during sieges, the besieging armies used to catapult anthrax- and plague-infected bodies of animals and people over castle and city walls, early biological warfare with real and lethal weapons of mass destruction. For the most part, humanity has used none of this since WWII. I don't think that's an accident, but the socio-psychological cause is not clear.

And this brings us back to psychology, and as you brought up, sociology. I shouldn't have left that out, because I think it's clear that each of these feeds the other. Individual psychology drives collective sociology (the psychology of social groups) and vice versa, with various different kinds of feedback and pressures. We really don't understand psychology that well - I know, lots of psychologists would disagree with me, but I really believe we've only just scratched the surface, because we really don't have the amount of observational evidence to call psychology or sociology real science.

People are much harder to figure out than matter and energy, for the simple reason that people lie. I don't always mean in the sense of deliberate deceit (though there's plenty of that), but more in the sense that people don't just come right out and explain why they do things. Very often they don't even know themselves. People are very, very good at deceiving themselves and ignoring things about themselves that they don't like or don't want to see. Sociology deals with large groups of people, who collectively act in different ways, sort of vector-averaging all their individual behaviors into a group function - but it's not always about the "average," because single individuals or small groups can profoundly influence how a large group acts, for better or for worse. In that case one has to fall back on that single person's individual psychology as well. It's all very imprecise.

Politicians are usually people quite adept at influencing small groups of people to follow their lead closely, while influencing larger groups perhaps more diffusely. However, politicians are also by definition part of a highly egotistical hierarchy, and are thus dangerous depending on their own personal psychology. Fortunately, since we've got a whole lot of them these days, their behaviors also tend to average out some. At least nowadays we have ways to oust them or limit their powers that don't depend on violent wars or violent uprisings and bloody executions. Interestingly, the politicians, even as they often play the system to their own advantage, still play by the rules and behave.

Between politics and advertising, we've got kind of a one-sided battle of influence going on, haven't we - and all aimed at what I'd define as "base" behavior, by both the "traditional" definition and my own somewhat more specific one above. Organized moral education - one of religion's perennial functions - and ethical education is having a hard time keeping up. A good question is, how can that be fought without allowing some dominant religious group to actively suppress the rest of the information, whether using government to do it or attempting to do it directly? How do we establish a reasonable core set of ethics or morals that a majority of people can work with? Have we possibly done so already, and are being blind to it?

I think it would do us a lot of good to put some major effort into doing our best to truly codify psychology and sociology. I think the reason why things are still so vague is pretty straightforward: people just don't want to know, and are afraid to find out how they really work - they're afraid to be so introspective, who knows what horrible things they'd have to admit to themselves? How do we foster an environment where people can do that without being afraid? I don't think any religion today offers that, nor does any other social "force."

There's a lot more in your post I'd like to address, p_T, but time constrains me. Things like this:

"Our culture teaches us to accept, as an unquestioned first principle, that all societies are, ontologically, collections of "individuals" whose arbitrary, capricious, criterionless choices must be regulated by external principles if anarchy is to be avoided."

I don't think this is so rigidly taught, and I also think it's demonstrably untrue. No human is completely independent from all others, and very few people make completely arbitrary, capricious choices with no criteria. Sociological effects are stronger than that!

(zoogleplex):"each individual person has potential value to the whole of humanity, and therefore, even if they make no visible, tangible contribution, they should be cared for by the whole of humanity."

(p_T): "I don't see it. In virtue of what does each individual have potential value to the whole of humanity?"

Ahhh. The beauty of this is that we don't really know how any one person may contribute. They may, they may not. Perhaps their existence has value simply in that it's valuable for other people to help them, or just to know them. There is no way to determine at any point how much any one person can contribute, and this uncertainty is the very reason we, as a race, should take care of each other, of all other humans. Because you just never know.

That's reason enough for me to try to treat others as well as possible. I don't need an external arbiter define that basis for me; it's part of "all people are born equal." That is, with equal potential. They should be given as much chance (by all of us) to reach it as possible, and forgiven (by all of us) if they don't. That is, IMO, a basis for human dignity. That can be a tool with which to fight prejudice.

I'll try to come back over the next few days, but with Thanksgiving this week that may be impossible.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:12 PM on November 20, 2006

Ah, one last thing, I failed to preview:

"Doesn't it bother any of you liberals just a little bit that there is a lie right at the heart of your social order?"

From my post above, you'll see that it does, of course, and I personally think it's quite wrong. I think it would behoove us to drop that, but I'm also not convinced that we all really believe it either, or act socially as if it were.

However, there may be a lie at the heart of your own social theories as well. I don't entirely understand them, so I'm not sure. It would be well to consider the possibility, just as it would be for "our" side of the argument.

Also, I realized on re-reading that this statement of mine is contradictory:

"I don't need an external arbiter define that basis for me; it's part of "all people are born equal." "

Of course, the thought that all people are born equal is a concept created by an external arbiter, so I retract that part of my statement, and say instead that I start from the concept that all people are born equal, which I feel to be a concept that we need to embrace if we are to progress.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:23 PM on November 20, 2006

Question: since that is an obviously absurd claim, why would you think it might be something I'd say?

my point, which you're determined to miss, is that you can't place blame for social conflict on liberalism alone ...

The language we are speaking, and the forum in which we are speaking it, both have your substantive political views built into them as unspoken assumptions. Your contention that we are both "equally" using the same language, and that therefore I am at no disadvantage, is as offensive as telling the Jews

puh-leeze ... if you can't argue without playing the victim card and coming || this close to godwinizing the thread, you don't have a good argument

did it ever occur to you that your difficulty in arguing your side could be your fault?

I must either use certain words in bad faith (words such as "moral" and "right")

oddly enough, i don't believe i've used those words much in this discussion ... and certainly, no one's required you to

this is not an appropriate forum for defending the rational superiority of the Catholic tradition.

that's a cop out ... and an admission of the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice you have been accused of up thread

it's also significant that once again, instead of discussing the issues, you choose to discuss the discussion ... "meta"filter doesn't have to be taken literally, you know ...

(also the history of the church doesn't exactly speak much for its rational superiority, does it? ... or it's effectiveness, for that matter ... the church had centuries to construct a decent society ... it did more good than bad, but it did not do enough)

(but perhaps instead of you blaming liberalism and me blaming the church, we could just agree that human beings will screw things up no matter what their philosophy or religion is)

We live in a society that claims to have rejected social hierarchy,

who have you been talking to, teenaged metalheads? ... we live in a society that is cynical about it ... and yet, you will find that people pay their taxes, do (some of) what their bosses tell them to do and otherwise make some show of obedience ...

Doesn't it bother any of you liberals just a little bit that there is a lie right at the heart of your social order?

you act as though we should be shocked to discover that life is, when all is said, a compromise between the individual and the world around him ...

i've never claimed than social hierarchy has been done away with in this society

i can't for the life of me understand why you would claim i have ... or why you continue to place blame on "liberalism" for things that seem to be part of the human condition and our nature, seeing as these things existed before there was a liberalism to rail against

and you STILL haven't told us what your alternative would be, although i dare say some kind of social hierarchy is central to it ...
posted by pyramid termite at 8:46 PM on November 20, 2006

zoogleplex: "I mentioned in my above post that hierarchichal structure is inherently corruptible and corrupting, which I believe is true in every instance where humans are involved in a hierarchy."

What do you do with master/apprentice hierarchical structure within human practices? Those don't strike me as inherently corrupting -- as for being corruptible, everything human is corruptible!

"we've been going along for several hundred years with this new kind of paradigm, a "fragmentation" of previous hierarchy if you will, without actually destroying ourselves"

We did a pretty impressive job on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The fact that a number of nations who have been in constant and sometimes bitter political conflict for more than half a century, and which possess the means to annihilate each other, have not actually done so, invites some close scrutiny, I should think. If Western (indeed, human) society were truly chaotic and driven by utterly selfish "atomic" individual whim (pun somewhat intended), one would think that nukes would have been used many times since 1945. Somehow they have always been avoided, even though we've had some very scary moments indeed."

I agree. What this shows, I think, is that the official story about "atomic individuals" isn't true.

"How do we establish a reasonable core set of ethics or morals that a majority of people can work with? Have we possibly done so already, and are being blind to it?"

I'm very pessimistic about that project.

"No human is completely independent from all others, and very few people make completely arbitrary, capricious choices with no criteria. Sociological effects are stronger than that!"

I agree, but what you are saying is incompatible with the official story of bureacratic individualism.

"The beauty of this is that we don't really know how any one person may contribute. They may, they may not. Perhaps their existence has value simply in that it's valuable for other people to help them, or just to know them. There is no way to determine at any point how much any one person can contribute, and this uncertainty is the very reason we, as a race, should take care of each other, of all other humans. Because you just never know."

Yes, you just never know, but you have to expend precious resources to take care of these "potentially valuable" humans. I don't see how you propose to justify those expenditures outside of a substantive account of the good such persons contribute. (For example, a MacIntyrean account of the contribution they make to the flourishing of particular communities of the virtues--which are structured by substantive--and hence controversial--conceptions of the human good.)

"That's reason enough for me to try to treat others as well as possible."

So liberal societies should prohibit abortion and infanticide?

zoogleplex: "there may be a lie at the heart of your own social theories as well. I don't entirely understand them, so I'm not sure. It would be well to consider the possibility,"

I agree.

pyramid termite: "you can't place blame for social conflict on liberalism alone ... "

Since I've been pretty explicit that social conflict is the engine driving properly functioning traditions, I don't see how you could think that I've tried to blame social conflict on bureaucratic individualism. The problem with bureaucratic individualism isn't that it doesn't get rid of all social conflict, something no social order ever will do and no social order should try to do, but because of the debilitating way in which it characterizes such conflicts as resulting from ultimately arbitrary choices by "individuals"--and hence immune to rational resolution.

"you act as though we should be shocked to discover that life is, when all is said, a compromise between the individual and the world around him ... "

That is precisely what life is not.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:52 AM on November 21, 2006

The problem with bureaucratic individualism isn't that it doesn't get rid of all social conflict, something no social order ever will do and no social order should try to do, but because of the debilitating way in which it characterizes such conflicts as resulting from ultimately arbitrary choices by "individuals"--and hence immune to rational resolution.

no, i hear people try to explain such conflicts all the time as being between a "right" philosophy or set of moral beliefs and a "wrong" one ... (before his fall, ted haggard was in fact one of those people) ... i also object to your saying such things are immune to rational resolution unless the people who disagree about them are shooting at each other

"you act as though we should be shocked to discover that life is, when all is said, a compromise between the individual and the world around him ... "

That is precisely what life is not.

you say, leaving it to me to speculate why you believe that, what you might believe life is, and whether your reasoning is based upon lack of belief in either individuals, the world, or both ...

earlier, you complained that the forum, and the language used upon the forum, make it impossible for you to explain what it is you support ... and yet, somehow it doesn't interfere with your ability to tell us what's wrong with things we like ... or to contradict us ... or to tell us that our philosophies are mistaken

if a nihilist were to do this, it would be understandable ... but i doubt you would call yourself that ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on November 21, 2006

pyramid termite: "The problem with bureaucratic individualism isn't that it doesn't get rid of all social conflict, something no social order ever will do and no social order should try to do, but because of the debilitating way in which it characterizes such conflicts as resulting from ultimately arbitrary choices by "individuals"--and hence immune to rational resolution.

no, i hear people try to explain such conflicts all the time as being between a "right" philosophy or set of moral beliefs and a "wrong" one ... (before his fall, ted haggard was in fact one of those people) ... "

I should have been clearer: I have been assuming that Nietzsche was right when he diagnosed modern moral utterances of the sort to which you refer as a mask for arbitrariness. Many if not most individuals in our society do indeed believe that they have "right" "moral" beliefs, but when you push them it soon becomes clear that their views are rooted in rationally indefensible, arbitrary choices. (For Haggard, for example, the rationally indefensible "choice" to become a born-again Christian is what grounds his belief that same-sex activity is wrong.) Several features of contemporary moral utterance make this point clear: (1) modern moral disagreement is utterly intractable and shrill, (2) moral language is now generally available to serve as a fig leaf for anything whatsoever, no matter how depraved (for example, check out the NAMBLA website; it is full of impressive-sounding "moral" arguments), and (3) given the constraints on "moral" argument in a liberal society, whatever sound arguments there are for "moral" conclusions must be able to be understood and affirmed by all minimally rational agents--yet there are no arguments that have attained such status.

"i also object to your saying such things are immune to rational resolution unless the people who disagree about them are shooting at each other"

Then you should avoid thinking about the role violence plays in maintaining your preferred social order. Officer Friendly's gun isn't there just for show. (And even if it were, the fact that he or she needs to put on that kind of show should give you a clue about the role of violence in resolving disputes in our society.) Or do you fancy that Officer Friendly's gun isn't really violent because the rules he or she enforces are "rational"?

"you act as though we should be shocked to discover that life is, when all is said, a compromise between the individual and the world around him ... "

That is precisely what life is not.

"you say, leaving it to me to speculate why you believe that, what you might believe life is, and whether your reasoning is based upon lack of belief in either individuals, the world, or both ..."

As for individuals, it seems clear to me that selves are always constructed using social materials, so I don't think it makes much sense to talk about "individuals" apart from a particular political or theological context. As for the world, I think that Davidson was right to reject the third dogma of empiricism. If by "the world" you just mean this or that corner of the world, I'm right there with you, but if you have in mind "the world" as something against which individuals and their conceptual schemes can be usefully contrasted, count me out. As for life, like all Christians, I think life is a quest for a good the attainment of which has the power to redeem the past.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:07 PM on November 21, 2006

(1) modern moral disagreement is utterly intractable and shrill,

at the extremes, it is, but is that a function of liberalism or just those who take advantage of its freedoms to make fools of themselves

(2) moral language is now generally available to serve as a fig leaf for anything whatsoever, no matter how depraved

the early christian church had the same problem with heretics, though ... this really isn't anything new ... and again, cannot be blamed on the existence of liberalism

(3) given the constraints on "moral" argument in a liberal society, whatever sound arguments there are for "moral" conclusions must be able to be understood and affirmed by all minimally rational agents--yet there are no arguments that have attained such status.

that's more a failing of consensus than anything else, though ... i've noticed it, and have no real solution except to say that sometimes externalities, such as an economic or military crisis, can create consensus where there was none and we may be approaching such a point in history once more ... (assuming that we DO reach a consensus)

Then you should avoid thinking about the role violence plays in maintaining your preferred social order.

violence is inherent in social hierarchy ... a quick examination of the lives of a pack of dogs or a group of gorillas will tell you that

As for individuals, it seems clear to me that selves are always constructed using social materials, so I don't think it makes much sense to talk about "individuals" apart from a particular political or theological context.

and societies are constructed of individuals ... it's one of those circular chicken and the egg things, and there's no resolving it

As for the world, I think that Davidson was right to reject the third dogma of empiricism.

i have to be blunt ... it's my opinion that the tao te ching and various zen buddhist monks showed up western philosophy and its constant hair splitting to be largely meaningless in its attempt to explain what cannot be explained and analyzed centuries, no millennia ago ... sorry ... but you cannot explain this with language, you can only suggest it ...

for example ...

If by "the world" you just mean this or that corner of the world, I'm right there with you, but if you have in mind "the world" as something against which individuals and their conceptual schemes can be usefully contrasted, count me out.

i think you're overthinking this ...

i was thinking about the environment we all live in ... also known as the planet, earth, society, civilization ... we negotiate and compromise our way through it on a daily basis ... the contrast being between what we try to do and how it works out for us

one could also describe it as a battle ... or a dance ... or many other things, i'm sure ...

i'm an artist, not an intellectual ... and western philosophy to me is one long "i don't really know, but ..."

i prefer "it just is, do what you will do with it"

As for life, like all Christians, I think life is a quest for a good the attainment of which has the power to redeem the past.

or a quest ... but it's something that's done in interacting with the world
posted by pyramid termite at 4:05 PM on November 21, 2006

pyramid termite: "(1) modern moral disagreement is utterly intractable and shrill, at the extremes, it is, but is that a function of liberalism or just those who take advantage of its freedoms to make fools of themselves"

The intractability and shrillness are not only at the extremes. The editorial and op-ed pages of any daily newspaper are full of intractable, shrill arguments, but only mainstream arguments ever make it into those forums.

"(2) moral language is now generally available to serve as a fig leaf for anything whatsoever, no matter how depraved[...] this really isn't anything new ... and again, cannot be blamed on the existence of liberalism"

The general availability of moral language to serve as cover for anything whatsoever is distinctively modern. Writers of the 17th and 18th centuries mostly agree about what morality requires, but disagree about how to justify these agreed-upon requirements. In the 19th and 20th centuries, what morality requires also becomes open to question. It was only at that point that moral language became generally available for any arbitrary purpose. Whether this development is due to the working out of the internal logic of bureaucratic individualism or due to something else, it is definitely something new.

"(3) given the constraints on "moral" argument in a liberal society, whatever sound arguments there are for "moral" conclusions must be able to be understood and affirmed by all minimally rational agents--yet there are no arguments that have attained such status. that's more a failing of consensus than anything else, though ... i've noticed it, and have no real solution except to say that sometimes externalities, such as an economic or military crisis, can create consensus where there was none and we may be approaching such a point in history once more ... (assuming that we DO reach a consensus)"

Consensus is precisely what liberalism demands in order to secure rational justification, so acknwledging the lack of consensus is a problem for liberals.

"Then you should avoid thinking about the role violence plays in maintaining your preferred social order. violence is inherent in social hierarchy ... a quick examination of the lives of a pack of dogs or a group of gorillas will tell you that"

Agreed. So the question is whether the violence is rationally justified. The violence liberalism uses to enforce itself is not rational, by its own standards of rationality. It is when this is pointed out that liberals flee into talking about their "moral intuitions".

"As for individuals, it seems clear to me that selves are always constructed using social materials, so I don't think it makes much sense to talk about "individuals" apart from a particular political or theological context. and societies are constructed of individuals ... it's one of those circular chicken and the egg things, and there's no resolving it"

If you are right about this, then bureaucratic individualism is incoherent. Works for me.

"the environment we all live in ... also known as the planet, earth, society, civilization ... we negotiate and compromise our way through it on a daily basis ... the contrast being between what we try to do and how it works out for us"

Fine, but you won't get a strong doctrine of individualism out of those sorts of observations.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 12:05 PM on November 22, 2006

The editorial and op-ed pages of any daily newspaper are full of intractable, shrill arguments, but only mainstream arguments ever make it into those forums.

i think much of the real mainstream has been silent ... either because of confusion ... or perhaps what they have to say is too moderate to be memorable ... or it may well be a matter of people being distant from power and therefore the consequences of their words ... or perhaps it's just the way baby boomers are ... it wasn't like this 40 years ago

Consensus is precisely what liberalism demands in order to secure rational justification, so acknwledging the lack of consensus is a problem for liberals.

it's a problem for any society and is demanded by any society, no matter what its tenets are ... liberals are at least a little more comfortable, in theory, with a small amount of lack of consensus ... in fact, if we didn't have a liberal society with the non-consensus we have now, it's not difficult to imagine the present level of conflict being a lot worse ... (by the way, where's the consensus among philosophers?)

So the question is whether the violence is rationally justified,

by a pack of dogs or a group of gorillas? ... look, is it too much for me to say that the world exists as it is whether you or i rationally justify it or not? ... does the sun have a rational justification for shining?

i've seen you question that everyone "deserves" certain rights because it's not rationally provable ... the idea that two parallel lines will never meet is not rationally provable either ... and yet, you can build a workable geometry with that idea ... (or, for that matter, the opposite idea)

you can build a workable society with the idea that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... this isn't speculation, it's been done ... and yes, you can build other workable societies on other ideas ... so far, it appears that most of us would rather live in the first kind of society where rights are recognized and pass up the other kinds of societies ... as long as it works, do they need to rationally justify the idea of "rights"? ... only if someone comes up with a more compelling and promising idea

do i need to rationally justify sunlight before i plant a garden?

(and yes, i am saying that a certain amount of violence is inherent in society ... you see, you have a dangerous desire for perfection ...)

If you are right about this, then bureaucratic individualism is incoherent. Works for me.

ineffable or inexplicable are better words ...

Fine, but you won't get a strong doctrine of individualism out of those sorts of observations.

strong doctrines, like strong trees, tend to snap if the wind blows hard enough ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:21 PM on November 22, 2006

"Writers of the 17th and 18th centuries mostly agree about what morality requires, but disagree about how to justify these agreed-upon requirements. In the 19th and 20th centuries, what morality requires also becomes open to question."

Oh, this is a good one. I think it's very, very important to remember that Western writers of the 17th and 18th centuries are almost exclusively white males of upper-class and/or religious-order (and by far, mostly Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant) origin and education, while in the 19th and most especially the 20th centuries new voices started to be heard - voices that had up to then been disallowed a forum in which to express their views, like, oh, women for example, and non-white people.

Pretty easy to see a consensus when all the people actually writing down their ideas comes from roughly the same socio-religio-political cohort. Note that until very recently the entire upper hierarchy of the Catholic Church was also composed almost entirely of white men educated in the Church system.

I'm certain that this "opening" of morality to question has a very great deal to do with those who were previously denied a say in their social "place" by the patently egotist-hierarchical white male power structure. It's to be expected that people who've been under what was essentially ruthless domination for centuries might have something divergent to say about their oppressors's consensus on "morality."

I think it might be a good idea to reconsider the source of the "moral consensus" which you may be using as a baseline for many of your ideas, p_T. Your statement smacks of "good ol' days" nostalgia for a time where some things seemed simpler - because only a small, narrowly-defined group of "thinkers" made the rules.

People outside that group don't think those were the "good ol' days." As many people have said many times here on MeFi, slavery, one of the ultimate dehumanizations, was once seen as a "moral," "proper," and "healthful and humane" thing to do, not to mention an economic mainstay and necessity (but of course I think the latter had a lot to do with engendering the former opinions...).

Sigh. I wish I had more time to write, I've had many more thoughts about all this. I'll have to dribble it all out over many days...
posted by zoogleplex at 2:48 PM on November 22, 2006

related, i think: JFK on "liberal"-- ...I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:56 PM on November 22, 2006

MeTa, again. This time, for the record.
posted by cgc373 at 3:42 PM on November 23, 2006

Well, I think this shows that the prior deletion was misplaced. How about resurrecting that dead thread?

19 days later, it's clear just how wrong caddis was. Fifteen hundred and ninety three comments wrong.
posted by cortex at 3:50 PM on November 23, 2006

no records in sight if y'all keep the comment length long. break 'em up! if you can't say what you mean in 200 words or less I don't believe you really mean what you're saying. less is more, and more's what we're aimin' for.
posted by carsonb at 5:14 PM on November 23, 2006

if you can't say what you mean in 200 words or less I don't believe you really mean what you're saying.

keep complaining about comment length and i'll go all treaty of westphalia on you ...

Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and
the King of France and their respective Allies.

In the name of the most holy and individual Trinity: Be it known to all, and every one whom it may concern, or to whom in any manner it may belong, That for many Years past, Discords and Civil Divisions being stir'd up in the Roman Empire, which increas'd to such a degree, that not only all Germany, but also the neighbouring Kingdoms, and France particularly, have been involv'd in the Disorders of a long and cruel War: And in the first place, between the most Serene and most Puissant Prince and Lord, Ferdinand the Second, of famous Memory, elected Roman Emperor, always August, King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburgh, the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Lord of Burgovia, of the Higher and Lower Lusace, of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines, with his Allies and Adherents on one side; and the most Serene, and the most Puissant Prince, Lewis the Thirteenth, most Christian King of France and Navarre, with his Allies and Adherents on the other side. And after their Decease, between the most Serene and Puissant Prince and Lord, Ferdinand the Third, elected Roman Emperor, always August, King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Arch-Duke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Marquiss of Moravia, Duke of Luxemburg, of the Higher and Lower Silesia, of Wirtemburg and Teck, Prince of Suabia, Count of Hapsburg, Tirol, Kyburg and Goritia, Marquiss of the Sacred Roman Empire, Burgovia, the Higher and Lower Lusace, Lord of the Marquisate of Slavonia, of Port Naon and Salines, with his Allies and Adherents on the one side; and the most Serene and most Puissant Prince and Lord, Lewis the Fourteenth, most Christian King of France and Navarre, with his Allies and Adherents on the other side: from whence ensu'd great Effusion of Christian Blood, and the Desolation of several Provinces. It has at last happen'd, by the effect of Divine Goodness, seconded by the Endeavours of the most Serene Republick of Venice, who in this sad time, when all Christendom is imbroil'd, has not ceas'd to contribute its Counsels for the publick Welfare and Tranquillity; so that on the side, and the other, they have form'd Thoughts of an universal Peace.

you want the rest of it? ... in ONE comment? ... what you need to ask yourself, punk, is "how lucky do i feel today?" ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on November 23, 2006

do it. yeah. see where you end up, buddy, covered in exploded raw ground beef. bloody grist for the vultures to swoop down on, easy kill. go ahead. I don't care. do it. I don't care.
posted by carsonb at 7:07 PM on November 23, 2006

see where you end up, buddy, covered in exploded raw ground beef.

ah, so YOU'RE the mad cow dynamiter!!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 PM on November 23, 2006

This is excellent! This is the kind of derail I like to see—historic or bust!
posted by cgc373 at 8:25 PM on November 23, 2006

Hey, and because this is Meta, and because it's delmoi's question, and because I hope delmoi pops in and does a delmoi–patented multi-comment extravaganza, I made a post to the front page that got deleted and was resurrected. I'll look it up and link it in the next comment for maximum Meta-impact.
posted by cgc373 at 8:32 PM on November 23, 2006

It was this one. [1600 comments!]
posted by cgc373 at 8:34 PM on November 23, 2006

What were we talking about?
posted by ericb at 9:35 PM on November 23, 2006

Dobson on 'Larry King Live': "I Want To Cure Ted Haggard of Being Gay But Don’t Have Time, It ‘Could Take Four or Five Years.’"
posted by ericb at 9:39 PM on November 23, 2006

how long does it take to cure stupid?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:25 AM on November 24, 2006

This thread has been the best one I've ever encountered. A shame it will end soon.
posted by bardic at 8:46 AM on November 24, 2006

How many of you are sick of seeing:

« Older Cicada Mania.... | Will It Blend?... Newer »

over and over?
posted by cgc373 at 9:16 AM on November 24, 2006

this is how sick i'm getting of it
posted by pyramid termite at 1:44 PM on November 24, 2006

MetaFilter: The best strategy would be to move away from the laptop, quickly.
posted by cgc373 at 4:08 PM on November 24, 2006

pyramid termite: "it wasn't like this 40 years ago"

Moral arguments have been shrill and rationally interminable since at least the middle of the 19th century.

"by the way, where's the consensus among philosophers?"

Reason is embedded in traditions, so the answer to your question depends on which philosophical tradition you're asking about. Within the liberal tradition, there is, as you are surely aware, no consensus. In the tradition of the virtues, however, there is a lot of consensus.

"look, is it too much for me to say that the world exists as it is whether you or i rationally justify it or not? ... does the sun have a rational justification for shining?"

That is exactly how people beaten down by bureacratic individualism regard the violence that oppresses them. We may "protest" what those in power do, but we all know that such protest is essentially futile posturing, because we all know that the "calculations" in which "utility" is "balanced" against "rights" are inherently bogus. No one today can play the kind of role a Catherine of Siena played in the 14th century, because we all know--in our heart of hearts even if we won't admit it publicly--that the violence at the heart of our social order is rationally indefensible.

"you can build a workable society with the idea that people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

No you can't.

zoogleplex: "I think it's very, very important to remember that Western writers of the 17th and 18th centuries are almost exclusively white males of upper-class and/or religious-order (and by far, mostly Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant) origin and education, while in the 19th and most especially the 20th centuries new voices started to be heard - voices that had up to then been disallowed a forum in which to express their views, like, oh, women for example, and non-white people."

I agree that this is both true and very, very important.

"Pretty easy to see a consensus when all the people actually writing down their ideas comes from roughly the same socio-religio-political cohort."

The breakdown in consensus came well before the introduction of the new voices.

"I'm certain that this "opening" of morality to question has a very great deal to do with those who were previously denied a say in their social "place" by the patently egotist-hierarchical white male power structure. It's to be expected that people who've been under what was essentially ruthless domination for centuries might have something divergent to say about their oppressors's consensus on "morality.""

I agree. "Morality" in the 16th and 17th centuries was very conservative-in-the-bad-sense. The tradition of the virtues, in contrast, which cannot be equated with "morality," had included a great deal more diversity and flexibility.

"I think it might be a good idea to reconsider the source of the "moral consensus" which you may be using as a baseline for many of your ideas, p_T. Your statement smacks of "good ol' days" nostalgia for a time where some things seemed simpler - because only a small, narrowly-defined group of "thinkers" made the rules."

You have misunderstood. I agree with your criticisms. They are correctly directed against "morality". But "morality" is a modern invention--and a failure.

"People outside that group don't think those were the "good ol' days." As many people have said many times here on MeFi, slavery, one of the ultimate dehumanizations, was once seen as a "moral," "proper," and "healthful and humane" thing to do, not to mention an economic mainstay and necessity (but of course I think the latter had a lot to do with engendering the former opinions...)."

Amen!

And tell me, zoogleplex, where the FUCK do you imagine the modern institution of slavery came from? People who study slavery are always amazed at just how virulent and dehumanizing--unprecedented, really--modern slavery was. Never before had there been a form of slavery in which manumission was not a possibility. Just where do you, zoogleplex, think the theoretical resources for this brutal slavery came from? From Catholicism? Don't make me laugh.

Seriously, I hope you will get off your high horse long enough to learn something about how the world you live in came into existence. Something more than liberal platitudes, anyway.

Speaking of which:

amberglow: "related, i think: JFK on "liberal"-- ...I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. ..."

You have to admire that John Courtney Murray-style, high-minded liberalism. It's the sort of thing that makes me wish liberalism were rationally defensible. I hope I haven't come across as in any way pleased that bureaucratic individualism has resulted in a new barbarism and the loss of a common language for talking about the human virtues. You think I am happy to be right about us entering a new dark ages? If bureaucratic individualism worked, and could really deliver the high-minded goods people like Kennedy and John Courtney Murray talked about, it would be the obligation of every reasonable person to support it. As it is, though, Nietzsche is the undefeated critic of the modern moral project--so undefeated that more than 100 years later no one has laid a glove on him and most liberals do not even bother trying. A reasonable person can either explore the various post-Nietzschean anti-humanisms, or try to retrieve and renew the tradition of the virtues, but the modern moral project is toast. Burnt toast.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:05 PM on November 24, 2006

I already started to derail this thread with an attempt to push it into second place for greatest number of comments on a MetaFilter thread, but I'm feeling contrite enough about that to want to make an eensy contribution to the discussion taking place mostly among peeping_Thomist, zoogleplex, and pyramid termite. It's a conversation about liberalism or "bureaucratic individualism" (which seems to be more or less synonomous with liberalism as practiced in the U.S. in the late 20th century, as p_T's using the phrase) and how to define or to understand liberal ideals, and whether those defintions can be made philosophically strict enough to defend using reason, meaning logic, meaning an axiomatic system. Or it's something like that, anyway.

My contribution is somewhat "meta" in that it's about my attempt to contribute; that is, the subject I'm discussing or want to discuss is the subject I want to discuss: namely, my contribution. It's hard to contribute to an ongoing discussion because a lot of the previous discussion took place without me. I think it's a generalizable phenomenon, and I think it's also central to a great deal of what peeping_Thomist tries to say throughout this thread. He's got a background in his tradition, a body of conversations that have taken place in his life through reading and through ordinary speech, and trying to put that body of experience into a viable, meaningful context here on MetaFilter is a) nearly impossible and b) probably futile, since few readers here will share much of their experiences—literary or otherwise—with p_T, no matter how much effort he puts into describing them. The point is, you have to live through a life to understand and to share its experiences, to partake of its traditions. (If I'm understanding p_T, that's what he's been saying all along: It's a more elaborate version of the trite Clintonian "it takes a village" title, less facile but essentially similar. I'm sure p_T will correct me if I've misrepresented his position.)

So there are two points to my meta-contribution: First, I can't contribute because the discussion's been going on too long without me. I can't catch up. And second, not being able to contribute because a conversation has gone on too long is normal. Disheartening, but normal.
posted by cgc373 at 6:23 PM on November 24, 2006

cgc373: "I think it's also central to a great deal of what peeping_Thomist tries to say throughout this thread. He's got a background in his tradition, a body of conversations that have taken place in his life through reading and through ordinary speech, and trying to put that body of experience into a viable, meaningful context here on MetaFilter is a) nearly impossible and b) probably futile, since few readers here will share much of their experiences—literary or otherwise—with p_T, no matter how much effort he puts into describing them. The point is, you have to live through a life to understand and to share its experiences, to partake of its traditions. (If I'm understanding p_T, that's what he's been saying all along: It's a more elaborate version of the trite Clintonian "it takes a village" title, less facile but essentially similar. I'm sure p_T will correct me if I've misrepresented his position.)"

That's pretty good. I would add only two points.

First, the impossibility and futility are not primarily due to others here not sharing the formative experiences of my life, but rather their not sharing conceptual resources that I gained in one way but that others gain in other ways. (Though certainly never by reading discussions on mefi.)

Second, a point of contrast: it is disturbingly easy to get oneself (any self at all!) into a position to be able to contribute to the "conversation" within the tradition of liberalism, precisely because of how shallow and dysfunctional that conversation is. It is possible to closely read 50 or 100 books (some of them, such as those by Kant or Rawls, quite impressive achievements in their own right), and thereby become conversant enough with liberalism to be able to deconstruct it. A few years of full-time study is enough to do it.

There is no comparable way to get oneself (let alone "any" self) "up to speed" to be able to make a contribution to conversations within a healthy tradition such as the tradition of the virtues. This was Descartes' complaint about the "schoolmen": you had to work like a dog for many years to get into position to understand what they were saying, and even then you could not be guaranteed that your judgments would be correct, because there were other, competing, and equally complicated "schools" ready to critique your "school". So instead of coming to grips with the reality of pluralism within a complex tradition and in that tradition's relation to other traditions, Descartes claimed to have discovered the clear light of Reason.

"First, I can't contribute because the discussion's been going on too long without me. I can't catch up. And second, not being able to contribute because a conversation has gone on too long is normal. Disheartening, but normal."

Yes to both of your points.

Sadly, most people in a regime of bureaucratic individualism cannot contribute to any fruitful (that is, not shallow in the way that liberal theory is shallow) conversations. That's why the condition in which they live is properly termed "barbarism". (Unless you count the sort of thing the Jack Black character did in High Fidelity to be indicative of a tradition in good working order--to rise above the barbaric in our culture is to become a master of the ephemeral.)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:26 PM on November 24, 2006

In the tradition of the virtues, however, there is a lot of consensus.

which tradition of the virtues? ... see this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if you really understand that we have never lived in a world in which ONE set of values, or virtues was agreed upon

We may "protest" what those in power do, but we all know that such protest is essentially futile posturing, because we all know that the "calculations" in which "utility" is "balanced" against "rights" are inherently bogus.

you confuse political theory with the venal and corrupt practices of those who only give lip service to those theories ... who just happen to be the same self-serving, folly-prone elites who have always run societies ... sometimes well, and often right into the ground ... the only difference now is that they must first tell the people how wise they are, how free they are, and how powerful they are before persuading them to shackle themselves with the help of the elite

needless to say, it's not very hard to accomplish ...

No one today can play the kind of role a Catherine of Siena played in the 14th century,

because that role wouldn't be helpful to our society ... in fact, it probably wasn't helpful to her society, either ... the church may have seen it as useful ...

because we all know--in our heart of hearts even if we won't admit it publicly--that the violence at the heart of our social order is rationally indefensible.

i could claim the same violence existed in 14th century europe

i suspect you have fallen prey to a catholic form of romanticism when it comes to older times and societies ...

and your assertion (even if you didn't make it directly) that the united states is not a workable society is contradicted by reality

And tell me, zoogleplex, where the FUCK do you imagine the modern institution of slavery came from?

spain ...

Just where do you, zoogleplex, think the theoretical resources for this brutal slavery came from? From Catholicism?

i don't recall that the conquistadors were protestant ... you seem to be forgetting that the colonial powers barged in on the african slave trade only after they realized that native americans weren't working out for them as slaves and that spain and portugal were at the forefront at first ... (i also should point out that the french were involved in this trade, too)

I hope I haven't come across as in any way pleased that bureaucratic individualism has resulted in a new barbarism and the loss of a common language for talking about the human virtues.

our technology and its capacity is what has resulted in a new barbarism ... our physical abilities have grown by orders of magnitude, but our ethical/moral abilities have stayed right where they were ... or possibly grown a little ... but not enough ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:39 PM on November 24, 2006

There is no comparable way to get oneself (let alone "any" self) "up to speed" to be able to make a contribution to conversations within a healthy tradition such as the tradition of the virtues. This was Descartes' complaint about the "schoolmen": you had to work like a dog for many years to get into position to understand what they were saying, and even then you could not be guaranteed that your judgments would be correct, because there were other, competing, and equally complicated "schools" ready to critique your "school".

and you wonder why the modern world has rejected this tradition ... at best, if followed honestly and faithfully, an elite of those who had studied and thoroughly gone through the tradition would inform the rest of us, who would not have the years available to study through all of this, how best to live and arrange our affairs ... unfortunately, as history has shown us, time and time again, it's a rare elite that can resist the temptations of power and its potential for abuse

and thus, liberalism, with its rather direct, simple and understandable ideas (if not practice), showed itself to be more comprehensible and worthy of approval to the average person

in other words, p_t, if you can't explain it in 5 minutes, most people aren't going to bother with it ... that's very frustrating to deal with, of course, but i don't know of a way around it ...

all i can say is that people in the hermetic tradition, for example, never expected or much cared if the world at large got it, as long as a few people did ... perhaps that's the best you can settle for ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:57 PM on November 24, 2006

Just where do you, zoogleplex, think the theoretical resources for this brutal slavery came from? From Catholicism?

In the context of America, yes. And more generally from Christianity ("Mark of Cain," "Sons of Ham.")

Very poor choice of example.
posted by bardic at 10:52 PM on November 24, 2006

[My contrition won't keep me from posting the 1614th comment, to tie 1142 for second place.]
posted by cgc373 at 8:52 PM on November 25, 2006

Hell, I'll go twice in a row and take the silver medal for 56002.
posted by cgc373 at 8:57 PM on November 25, 2006

pyramid termite: "makes me wonder if you really understand that we have never lived in a world in which ONE set of values, or virtues was agreed upon"

Yes, I "really understand" that there have always been multiple traditions, and that within each tradition there has always been disagreement; it is central to my account of what a tradition is. To use MacIntyre's formulation, a living tradition is "an historically extended, socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods which constitute that tradition."

For example, in the 13th century, it was very hotly disputed whether the new mendicant orders, such as the Dominicans and the Franciscans, offered a legitimate way of living out the evangelical counsels. Acrimonious arguments went back and forth, accusations of heresy were advanced and rebutted, and the question was finally resolved, with some of the mendicant orders being permitted while others were suppressed. There was heated, though well-defined, disagreement against a background of substantial shared agreement, and that is what traditions in good working order look like.

In contrast, within the tradition of liberalism it is only possible to ask such utterly vacuous questions as whether a certain action or policy reasonably "balances" the requirements of "utility" against our aspirations regarding "rights" -- even though the very notion of "balancing" in this context, implying as it does the commensurability of goods, is cognitively contentless -- as are the notions of "utility" and "rights". Hence, liberalism is not a tradition in good working order.

"you confuse political theory with the venal and corrupt practices of those who only give lip service to those theories"

No I don't.

"your assertion (even if you didn't make it directly) that the united states is not a workable society is contradicted by reality"

Ah, so a ham-fisted appeal to reality is going to settle a substantive philosophical disagreement! I guess there's a first time for everything!

"our technology and its capacity is what has resulted in a new barbarism ... our physical abilities have grown by orders of magnitude, but our ethical/moral abilities have stayed right where they were ... or possibly grown a little ... but not enough ..."

Does that disproportion reveal nothing significant about the political order that gave rise to it?

pyramid termite: "at best, if followed honestly and faithfully, an elite of those who had studied and thoroughly gone through the tradition would inform the rest of us, who would not have the years available to study through all of this, how best to live and arrange our affairs ..."

That gets the order of things wrong. Good theory and good practice have to grow together. You make it sound as though it is possible to step outside of space and time to settle, once and for all, the question of how it is best to live. That can't be done.


bardic: "Just where do you, zoogleplex, think the theoretical resources for this brutal slavery came from? From Catholicism?

In the context of America, yes."

Absurd. Please cite some reputable contemporary historians of modern slavery who make this argument.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:43 AM on November 27, 2006

Yes, I "really understand" that there have always been multiple traditions, and that within each tradition there has always been disagreement

but in a world in which those multiple traditions exist and experience much contact and conflict, there must be a way to mediate between them ... the methods of liberal politics offer one way ... the methods of smith and wesson offer another ... i know which i prefer ...

There was heated, though well-defined, disagreement against a background of substantial shared agreement, and that is what traditions in good working order look like.

it was heated discussion, alright ... in the cases of gerard segarelli, fra dolcino, and of course the cathars and waldensians, the discussions got *quite* heated, didn't they?

in fact, suppressed, although technically accurate, doesn't really describe what the losers in these debates experienced ... which could be as bad as imprisonment, torture, and murder by being burned alive

and THIS is what you hold up as an example of conflict resolution in a tradition that's in "good working order" ... what would have been one that wasn't in good working order? ... one where the flints didn't light well and the wood was wet?

Ah, so a ham-fisted appeal to reality is going to settle a substantive philosophical disagreement!

pitch, fire and wood are things that are found in reality and have been known to settle substantive philosophical disagreements quite permanently

Does that disproportion reveal nothing significant about the political order that gave rise to it?

it reveals that the current political order has often not been up to the task ... but then, is it the job of the political order to form ethics and morals?

a while back, you also accused our political order of causing the destruction of our civilization by nuclear weapons, global warming, etc etc ... but it's not the political order that determines these things but science and the application of it ... in short, you place too much blame on political philosophy

also, any time someone has tried to replace the current political order with something else, the results have been anywhere from unpleasant to utterly catastrophic ... but then again, that's one of those ham-fisted appeals to reality, i guess ... not quite as effective as lighter fluid and a match, i'm sure
posted by pyramid termite at 1:26 PM on November 27, 2006

peeping_Thomist writes Absurd. Please cite some reputable contemporary historians of modern slavery who make this argument.

Read Uncle Toms Cabin, for starters. Not my favorite read, mind you, but please take your fingers out of yours ears when it comes to the links between slavery and the use of Christian texts to justify slavery. Then, try this link which contains these quotations:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

Wikipedia.

"Noah's Curse."

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, your inability to acknowledge the actual, historical abuses which have occured in the name of theology and/or anti-liberal traditions is really funny, if not downright sad. Liberalism is built around acknowledging the mote in its own eye and trying to remedy said mote over time. Yet you have this honking plank sticking out of your skull, and you keep telling us that you see things so clearly. Jesus had a word for you people.
posted by bardic at 2:38 PM on November 27, 2006

pyramid termite writes in fact, suppressed, although technically accurate, doesn't really describe what the losers in these debates experienced ... which could be as bad as imprisonment, torture, and murder by being burned alive

and THIS is what you hold up as an example of conflict resolution in a tradition that's in "good working order" ... what would have been one that wasn't in good working order? ... one where the flints didn't light well and the wood was wet?

Exactly.
posted by bardic at 2:40 PM on November 27, 2006

pyramid termite: "in a world in which those multiple traditions exist and experience much contact and conflict, there must be a way to mediate between them ... the methods of liberal politics offer one way ... the methods of smith and wesson offer another ... i know which i prefer ..."

As though liberalism were not itself one more tradition! As though the methods of liberal politics were distinguishable from the methods of smith and wesson!

"the discussions got *quite* heated, didn't they? in fact, suppressed, although technically accurate, doesn't really describe what the losers in these debates experienced"

Now that you've had your larf, would you care to compare the rates of people subjected to criminal penalties in 13th century Europe against the rates of Americans incarcerated today? (I'm willing to set aside the millions upon millions of Americans whose lives are inextricably bound up with and irreparably harmed by the criminal justice system through probation, or whatever, and focus only on the sheer number of living, breathing human beings who are physically incarcerated in America today.) I'm sure the "losers" in American jails, say those who are "losing" regarding the "debate" about drug legalization, would have interesting perspectives on this question.

"Does that disproportion reveal nothing significant about the political order that gave rise to it? it reveals that the current political order has often not been up to the task ... but then, is it the job of the political order to form ethics and morals?"

Every political order teaches its citizens something. Look at your out of control technology and your filled-to-overflowing jails. That is the result of what liberalism has taught its citizens. You're justifiably eager to take credit for liberalism's many successes. How's about you own up to its many failures as well?

Wait a second, now I see. Your plan is to blame the "individuals" who live under liberal regimes for not having somehow bootstrapped their way (from God only knows what starting point) into being adequately "moral" people! Smooth move, that -- blaming the victim is always a winning strategy!

"it's not the political order that determines these things but science and the application of it ..."

As though the development and application of science were not textbook examples of political questions!

Have you seriously never thought about the connections between technology and politics?

"in short, you place too much blame on political philosophy"

You clearly don't take political philosophy seriously enough.

"any time someone has tried to replace the current political order with something else, the results have been anywhere from unpleasant to utterly catastrophic"

Apparently you missed it the first half dozen or so times, but this is a point I have repeatedly made (not conceded, as you seem to think), in this thread, without any prompting from you or anyone else. There is no way to reimpose the tradition of the virtues from the top down. Every attempt to do so has resulted in terror and/or totalitarianism. Having learned that lesson, reasonable people now can only conclude that bureaucratic individualism must be allowed to run its course until it grinds to a halt, as did the Roman Empire. That is why I have no large-scale alternative (at the level of the modern nation-state) to offer. The only reasonable thing to do at this point is work on shoring up and creating new local forms of community, including families and networks of families that can preserve the tradition of the virtues, in the hope that bureaucratic individualism will grind to a halt before it destroys all life on earth.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:51 PM on November 27, 2006

bardic: "peeping_Thomist writes Absurd. Please cite some reputable contemporary historians of modern slavery who make this argument.

Read Uncle Toms Cabin, for starters."

Really? For evidence that Catholicism provided the theoretical resources required for the modern, brutal form of slavery found in America? [peeping_Thomist pulls down worn copy of _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ from his bookshelf, leafs through it to reassure himself that he hasn't lost his memory.] Nope, nothing there.

Dude, none of the (cribbed Wikipedia) quotes you provided has diddly to do with the influence of the Catholic tradition on American slavery. I'm guessing you haven't ever read much of anything about the striking features of American slavery that made it so different from, and so much more abhorrent than, ancient and medieval forms of slavery, but I can assure you that every serious historian who has studied slavery has thought about it, and so far as I know none of them invokes Catholicism as a major part of their explanation of the peculiar brutality of our "peculiar institution".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:05 PM on November 27, 2006

So you still won't admit that you have a much easier time of shoring up and creating new local forms of community, including families and networks of families that can preserve the tradition of the virtues (of an admittedly Catholic bent I can only assume, but I certainly don't know for sure) here than in say, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, or Sierra Leone?

What I'd like to hear, frankly, is an admission that while you despise both the foundation and fruits of Liberalism, it's the only existing system under which you could be a Catholic, be married and conduct yourself sexually with the person of your choice, and vote on local referendums as you choose.

And honestly, you attacking the rest of society for not allowing virtue? After you bent over backwards to defend a scum-bag like Ted Haggard for not being a hypocrite? Honestly, that's just plain weird.
posted by bardic at 3:05 PM on November 27, 2006

Stop trying to move the goal-posts, as usual. Although Catholicism was used to justify slavery many, many times in the past (among other things, including the genocide of Native Americans), it was, as I cearly stated, Christianity more generally that was a culprit in the United States (since most Christians here were Protestant, obviously).

But your defence of Catholicism here is laudable. Kind of like neo-cons arguing that, hey, we aren't as bad as Saddam Hussein at least. (My favorite moment in the rapaciousness of the Catholic Church would have to be the missionaries in South America who were adamant about baptising the Indians before they were burnt, beheaded, raped, or impaled, to make sure they might just go to heaven.)

As for Uncle Tom's Cabin, are you telling me that Beecher Stowe wasn't illustrating the rank hypocrisy of Christians in their actions towards slaves in the figure of someone like Simon Legree?

Oh, and nice dodge of the Jefferson Davis quote. I'd remind you that he was president of the frickin' Confederacy.

But this thread has always been more interesting when you've gotten desperate and personal. Please continue.
posted by bardic at 3:16 PM on November 27, 2006

Now that you've had your larf, would you care to compare the rates of people subjected to criminal penalties in 13th century Europe against the rates of Americans incarcerated today?

he says, as if 13th century europe had been a monolithic entity ... as if most of the petty criminal cases weren't taken care of by local nobles or their representatives ... as if a good many of these people responsible for these modest on the manor tribunals kept records ... (as if a good many of them could read and write to do so)

you can't compare the rates of that because the data is woefully insufficient for 13th century europe ... which you would know, if you knew anything about the time period besides what church was doing at the time ...

i'm noticing something ... history is NOT your strong point ... mostly because you see it in a haze of romanticism that allows you to pick and choose what you see ...

by the way ... although the data on this is pretty spotty, i daresay the rate of serfdom and chattelage in 13th century europe is MUCH higher than it is in our country ...

Every political order teaches its citizens something. Look at your out of control technology and your filled-to-overflowing jails. That is the result of what liberalism has taught its citizens.

so you would say that when thomas sowell claims that much of our criminal subculture is based upon the "border" culture of late middle ages england, that he's mistaken and it's really "liberal" culture that's responsible for that?

out of control technology? ... hmmm, the worst applications, results and consequences of modern technology were in nazi germany and the soviet union ... the holocaust and the gulag are obvious starting points as far as the direct human consequences ... and as bad as american corporations may have been with their environmental record at times, the soviets and their client states were ridiculously careless and ignorant

and russia is NOT a liberal western state ... nor has it ever been one

You're justifiably eager to take credit for liberalism's many successes. How's about you own up to its many failures as well?

when you actually manage to demonstrate that liberalism actually causes what you consider to be the world's modern failures, then we start determining what the failures actually are

you can put a mask of "liberalism" on human nature all you like, but it doesn't change our imperfection or our failure to resist temptation

i will say one thing ... that our brand of liberalism in this country has not been very good at solving this problem ... but curiously enough, it would seem that european liberal democracies aren't having the same kinds of problems ... why would their "liberalism" teach good citizenship and ours hooliganism?

Your plan is to blame the "individuals" who live under liberal regimes for not having somehow bootstrapped their way (from God only knows what starting point) into being adequately "moral" people!

want a match for that strawman?

Have you seriously never thought about the connections between technology and politics?

it's all or nothing with you isn't it? ... explain if you would, how liberalism has caused both the united states and north korea to manufacture the bomb

There is no way to reimpose the tradition of the virtues from the top down. Every attempt to do so has resulted in terror and/or totalitarianism. Having learned that lesson, reasonable people now can only conclude that bureaucratic individualism must be allowed to run its course until it grinds to a halt, as did the Roman Empire.

by the time the roman empire ground to a halt, it was the beginning of the 16th century ... and the inheritors of the roman empire were well established

in fact, if you're talking about the WESTERN roman empire, i think it's more than likely that a combination of neglect by eastern emperors and christianity caused it to decline long before the barbarians decided to join their cousins in gaul and italy and change the government to something a little less tiresome ...

the point of all this nitpicking is that things generally don't grind to a halt in history ... they generally mutate into something else ... or in some cases, get exterminated mercilessly ...

you know, like cortez, and pizarro and the rest of those good catholics who weren't exterminating and enslaving native americans decades before slave ships from europe visited africa

but i forget that all that's a ham-fisted appeal to reality ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:04 PM on November 27, 2006

Dan Savage: "Ted Haggard: Non-Gay For Pay?"
posted by ericb at 4:15 PM on November 27, 2006

Which failures of liberalism do you want us to take responsibility for, p_T? Lay them out, I'll see what I can do. I can take a few for the team, as it were.

By the way, can I read from your statements about how slavery was so much more "humane" in ye olden days, that you would support allowing such "humane" chattelage today, perhaps as part of your "local community building" efforts? Since there's a long tradition of it that was only recently derailed by the Industrial Revolution and new concepts of human rights (about which you have been quite frank in stating your opinion, namely that they are rubbish), do you think that tradition should be reinstated?
posted by zoogleplex at 5:34 PM on November 27, 2006

Police Investigate Haggard's Gay Whistleblower.
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on November 28, 2006

bardic: "So you still won't admit that you have a much easier time of shoring up and creating new local forms of community, including families and networks of families that can preserve the tradition of the virtues (of an admittedly Catholic bent I can only assume, but I certainly don't know for sure) here than in say, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, or Sierra Leone?"

My unwillingness to "admit" this comes not out a reluctance to give credit where credit is due, but because I do not know whether what you say is true. Totalitarianism is bad news, but materialism also poses special challenges to preserving and cultivating the tradition of the virtues. Which is easier: keeping the underground Church alive in China, or trying to communicate the barest rudiments of a Christian vision of life to suburbanites so deformed by the culture of consumerism that they have the attention spans of small children?

How about this: I affirm your point about the evils of (what I've been calling) radical liberalism, but think you underestimate the harm done by the consumerism characteristic of (what I've been calling) conservative liberalism and liberal liberalism.

"What I'd like to hear, frankly, is an admission that while you despise both the foundation and fruits of Liberalism, it's the only existing system under which you could be a Catholic, be married and conduct yourself sexually with the person of your choice, and vote on local referendums as you choose."

Well, since it is the only existing system, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

bardic: "are you telling me that Beecher Stowe wasn't illustrating the rank hypocrisy of Christians in their actions towards slaves in the figure of someone like Simon Legree?"

Of course not. But holding Catholics to account for what is done by people who believe each man is his own pope strikes me as a bit silly.

pyramid termite: "Now that you've had your larf, would you care to compare the rates of people subjected to criminal penalties in 13th century Europe against the rates of Americans incarcerated today? he says, as if 13th century europe had been a monolithic entity ... as if most of the petty criminal cases weren't taken care of by local nobles or their representatives ... as if a good many of these people responsible for these modest on the manor tribunals kept records ... (as if a good many of them could read and write to do so)"

Sure, but if you know anything about the developments in medieval studies over the past 40 years or so, you know that we've managed to learn quite a bit about ordinary life back then. But the comparison relevant for my purposes is easy enough to make: there was never the kind of institutional infrastructure in place needed to incarcerate people at anywhere near the rates at which we now incarcerate the "losers" in our debates. I am surprised, given the high quality of most of your comments in this thread, that you would try to dodge this point.

"i daresay the rate of serfdom and chattelage in 13th century europe is MUCH higher than it is in our country ..."

Indeed. And I'm not defending those practices. But I would rather be a 13th century serf than a member of the 21st century criminal underclass.

"you can put a mask of "liberalism" on human nature all you like, but it doesn't change our imperfection or our failure to resist temptation"

See, when I accused you of blaming the victim, I wasn't attacking a strawman!

"... why would their "liberalism" teach good citizenship and ours hooliganism?"

I think that's an interesting question. I also think it will be interesting to watch what happens to Western Europe as the numbers of muslims keeps increasing.

"it's all or nothing with you isn't it? ... explain if you would, how liberalism has caused both the united states and north korea to manufacture the bomb"

I guess you're not buying my claim that they share the underlying social form of bureaucratic individualism, to which liberals (conservative, liberal and radical) can acknowledge no alternative.

zoogleplex: "can I read from your statements about how slavery was so much more "humane" in ye olden days, that you would support allowing such "humane" chattelage today, perhaps as part of your "local community building" efforts?"

I think it would be a great loss if there were a return to slavery after it had been successfully eradicated. Something on the order of allowing divorce after it had been eradicated. But as cultures descend back into darkness, we can expect to see slavery return, much as we have seen the return of divorce.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:27 PM on November 29, 2006

Totalitarianism is bad news, but materialism also poses special challenges to preserving and cultivating the tradition of the virtues.

I suspect you'd have no problem with totalitarianism, as long as it's your totalitarianism.

holding Catholics to account for what is done by people who believe each man is his own pope strikes me as a bit silly

Of course, Protestantism was a response to the rank debauchery of Christ's teachings that was the contemporary Catholic church. Better to use your own moral compass than the Borgia's, I think.

I think it would be a great loss if there were a return to slavery after it had been successfully eradicated. Something on the order of allowing divorce after it had been eradicated.

Slavery ... divorce. Yeah, they're about the same degree of evil, alright. From a cursory reading of what you write, you seem somewhat rational, but then you leave a gem like this to let us know you're simply off your meds. If you're representative of mainstream Catholic thought, then our only hope is Diderot's wish to strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:20 PM on November 29, 2006

"Which is easier: keeping the underground Church alive in China, or trying to communicate the barest rudiments of a Christian vision of life to suburbanites so deformed by the culture of consumerism that they have the attention spans of small children?"

Probably the former, considering that most of those suburbanites believe that their consumerist culture way of life is founded on Christian vision (which to anyone who actually reads the Bible is laughable, of course) - one of the problems of allowing those who claim to speak for God to tell you what to do and how to live.

Strangely, I personally was brought up without any religious indoctrination whatsoever, and still somehow have ended up with an ethical and moral framework that conforms to the highest principles of Christian thought and other religions and philosophies. I wonder how that happened?

Haggard's church is one of those that preaches the Gospel of the God's Almighty Consumerist Dollar, of course...

"I affirm your point about the evils of (what I've been calling) radical liberalism, but think you underestimate the harm done by the consumerism characteristic of (what I've been calling) conservative liberalism and liberal liberalism."

Before we estimate that harm in any way, perhaps we should determine whether consumerism is in fact an inherent property of liberalism? I can see how it might allow consumerism to get out of hand, but that doesn't mean it is an inevitable consequence of liberalism.

We're in a unique period of human history, where the amount of energy each person can access and expend is several orders of magnitude greater than at any prior point. The availablity of cheap energy and thus massive physical resources to the entire population is entirely unprecedented and a phenomenon of only the last 100 years, perhaps only the last 50 years. No civilization on earth has ever had this.

Liberalism in a climate of extremely limited personal resource access, perhaps at the 1750 level of technology, would be an entirely different animal, methinks.

"But the comparison relevant for my purposes is easy enough to make: there was never the kind of institutional infrastructure in place needed to incarcerate people at anywhere near the rates at which we now incarcerate the "losers" in our debates."

Most people back then didn't really have a voice in the debate. Crime among the peasants was largely ignored by the lords (though not the Church, of course), unless the lord's interest was affected in some way, and punishment for such was usually swift and physically brutal if not lethal. You don't need prisons for dead people, only burial space. Much more economical.

There were lords, and brigands, and tenant serfs... and the brigands often became lords

"But as cultures descend back into darkness, we can expect to see slavery return, much as we have seen the return of divorce."

Interesting... ah, yes, divorce is such a horror. So I assume you have convincing evidence that the eradication of divorce also eliminated sexual infidelity, spousal abuse and child abuse, and positively resulted in married people leading more Godly lives in accordance with papal edicts?

"Indeed. And I'm not defending those practices. But I would rather be a 13th century serf than a member of the 21st century criminal underclass."

With this statement, you, sir, reveal yourself to not only be an incurable romanticist about human history, but an abject power-worshipper as well. You'd really rather be a total subject of some lord, with your life to be given or taken at his whim, and absolutely no chance of ever changing your status, than someone who, while he may be a criminal, actually has a chance (however small), of escaping his underclass situation and redeeming himself to the rest of humanity?

I remind you that serfs were the vast, vast majority of the population, while the "criminal underclass" is a tiny minority. Two million people in prison, shameful as it is, is still less than 1% of Americans.

Also, criminality is a matter of convention. Moralists like you are the reason that hundreds of thousands of people are in prison for possession of small amounts of marijuana, and for creating the virulent and deadly crime organizations that started out bootlegging rum during Prohibition, and now make billions running drugs and spending much of that take corrupting our government.

Again: "there was never the kind of institutional infrastructure in place needed to incarcerate people at anywhere near the rates at which we now incarcerate the "losers" in our debates."

If you'd like to empty out our prisons, maybe you should get off your moral high horse and stop making "getting high," a behavior you may find morally repugnant, grounds for imprisonment!

But no, you'd rather cackle with glee that your neighbors have to travel over one county to buy beer.

Because while you're a power-worshipper (at least of those you see as "legitimate" authority) to those above you, to those you see as being beneath you (almost everyone else) you're the rightful, God-decreed and logical arbiter of What Is Right and What Is Wrong. You seem like you'd be an absolutely perfect specimen of a member of an egotistical dominating bureaucratic hierarchy! :)

"But as cultures descend back into darkness,"

And for a Catholic, you sure sound apocalyptically doomerish!

Cultures rise and fall, and they mutate and combine into other cultures. That's history, and humanity.
posted by zoogleplex at 3:31 PM on November 29, 2006

That equivalence between slavery and divorce is weird enough that I have to wonder whether peeping_Thomist meant it as it is writ. Maybe he's talking about a kind of spiritual damage, which I find it difficult to imagine, but I'll ask anyway. What did you mean, there, peeping_Thomist?
posted by cgc373 at 3:41 PM on November 29, 2006

there was never the kind of institutional infrastructure in place needed to incarcerate people at anywhere near the rates at which we now incarcerate the "losers" in our debates.

they didn't do institutional infrastructure that well back then

I am surprised, given the high quality of most of your comments in this thread, that you would try to dodge this point.


i didn't ... i said the point wasn't provable with the records we have ... and, seeing as you don't want to make the connection, i daresay serfdom is a form of incarceration ...

at least we convict people of things before we deprive them of their freedom ...

See, when I accused you of blaming the victim, I wasn't attacking a strawman!

and when i talk about human imperfection and the failure to resist temptation, you act as though i'm speaking martian ... which is a rather odd thing to do for a self-professed christian ...

we are not just passive victims ... we are also perpetrators ...

I guess you're not buying my claim that they share the underlying social form of bureaucratic individualism, to which liberals (conservative, liberal and radical) can acknowledge no alternative.

you're really going to sit there and tell me that north korea is a liberal society in ANY sense of the word? ... or that it was at ANY time in history?

you are dead wrong about that ... and no, just because a modern day oriental style emperor of the old school talks a bunch of crap about his "theories" doesn't mean that he's any different than the old ones were

i bet you think that russia is a western liberal society, too ...

But as cultures descend back into darkness, we can expect to see slavery return, much as we have seen the return of divorce.

perhaps ... we wouldn't have to amend the constitution, either ... slavery is still constitutional ...

"Indeed. And I'm not defending those practices. But I would rather be a 13th century serf than a member of the 21st century criminal underclass."

With this statement, you, sir, reveal yourself to not only be an incurable romanticist about human history, but an abject power-worshipper as well.

he would rather be submissive than combative ... which perhaps isn't inconsistent with his beliefs or dishonorable

but i must note this - he has no idea what being a serf or a thug is really like

Also, criminality is a matter of convention. Moralists like you are the reason that hundreds of thousands of people are in prison for possession of small amounts of marijuana,

come to think of it, if a grocery store were to start selling beer and wine against the wishes of him and his enlightened electorial friends that voted against such sales ... eventually, if the stores refused to stop selling, then the people running them would have to be imprisoned to stop them, wouldn't they?

he complains about the violence done towards two million prisoners in this society, but then by voting for such a law, he's actually giving the government MORE reason to create MORE prisoners

great consistency, p_T
posted by pyramid termite at 4:51 PM on November 29, 2006

a meta note ... threads only stay open for 30 days, and so this thread will close on dec 2

better say it in the next few days, cause after saturday, it's done ...
posted by pyramid termite at 4:54 PM on November 29, 2006

Did we break the record?
posted by zoogleplex at 5:10 PM on November 29, 2006

Sort of. If we had True Grit™, we could break The All-Time Record™ and dethrone 9622, which stands at 1729 comments, but I don't think we can do it. Not even with slavery as bait. The only way I can see this thread going into the Top Spot involves mathowie reinstating images and declaring open season in 56002, and he'd have to do it tonight. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by cgc373 at 5:31 PM on November 29, 2006

I dunno. We could get into a debate about dialectal variations in the pronunciation of "nuclear", or something.
posted by cortex at 5:44 PM on November 29, 2006

me & my monkey: "I suspect you'd have no problem with totalitarianism, as long as it's your totalitarianism."

You suspect wrong.

"Slavery ... divorce. Yeah, they're about the same degree of evil, alright. From a cursory reading of what you write, you seem somewhat rational, but then you leave a gem like this to let us know you're simply off your meds."

Looking at what I wrote, I can see why you thought I was saying that.

I was not making a point about the "degree of evil" involved in slavery and divorce. Slavery is more evil than divorce. The point of my comparison was about how the requirements of the natural law change in response to changing cultural conditions. Jesus says God allowed divorce because of the hardness of the human heart, but that "in the beginning it was not so," and Christian cultures are to live in accord with the correct understanding of marriage, which does not include divorce. Something similar is the case with slavery. The existence of slavery is not part of the natural law as it was "in the beginning", in much the way that divorce is not originally part of the natural law, and yet at certain times and places, the hardness of human hearts results in societies that depend upon slavery or divorce. Or prostitution -- to use Augustine's example, prostitution is clearly not part of God's plan for human sexuality "in the beginning," but nonetheless it is better to allow prostitution than to have the seamen who visit a port town raping the local women. But "in the beginning it was not so". Outlawing divorce today would be a huge disaster, much as outlawing slavery in classical antiquity would have been catastrophic.

I apologize for not making clear that the comparison I was making was not about the relative seriousness of slavery versus divorce. Slavery is much more evil than divorce, which in turn is much more evil than prostitution.

"If you're representative of mainstream Catholic thought, then our only hope is Diderot's wish to strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest."

Seriously, that's your "only hope" for defeating us terrifying papists? Why not just relax and be amused by the thought that hardly anyone takes seriously the sorts of things people like me say?

zoogleplex: "I personally was brought up without any religious indoctrination whatsoever, and still somehow have ended up with an ethical and moral framework that conforms to the highest principles of Christian thought and other religions and philosophies. I wonder how that happened?"

Both ethical and moral? Wow. Not just ethical, not just moral, but ethical and moral?! Impressive! :)

Anyway, I don't mean to be overly combative, but those "highest principles" to which you refer are almost certainly principles you are disposed to affirm independently of any exposure you have had to Christian thought. For example, I'm guessing that the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is not, for you, one of the "highest principles" of Christian thought! I'm also guessing that Jesus's declaration that "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father except through Me" is not, on your view, one of the "highest principles" of Christian thought! (Not trying to start a fight here, just pointing out that the meaning of "highest principles" is something about which reasonable people disagree.)

"Haggard's church is one of those that preaches the Gospel of the God's Almighty Consumerist Dollar, of course..."

There are those who preach what's called the Prosperity gospel, but I hadn't heard that Haggard was part of that movement. From what (little) I've read about him, he seems to be someone who believes that preaching to gospel to contemporary Americans requires radically reformatting the message.

"perhaps we should determine whether consumerism is in fact an inherent property of liberalism? I can see how it might allow consumerism to get out of hand, but that doesn't mean it is an inevitable consequence of liberalism."

Because of the way bureaucratic individualism defines the relationship between the individual and the political community, it's impossible to avoid consumerism. (The only reason communist societies weren't "consumeristic" is because they were so crappy at giving their citizens access to consumer goods.) In particular, religious, ethical and aesthetic goods become defined as consumer items, matters of "lifestyle" choices.

"Liberalism in a climate of extremely limited personal resource access, perhaps at the 1750 level of technology, would be an entirely different animal, methinks."

It was a slower-moving version of the same animal. Note that it was during that time (17th-18th centuries) that the understanding of morality was being so radically transformed. For example, rules replaced virtues as the primary topic of conversation, and virtues became understood as dispositions to follow particular rules (with one rule of conduct governing each virtue), until finally "virtue" replaced the virtues and became a kind of vague, general disposition to be "moral". (Kant, at the end of the 18th century could actually define "virtue" as an act of will that disposes us to follow moral law, something that no pre-modern ethicist, other than a Stoic, could even have comprehended, let alone affirmed.) The changes of content, which you rightly pointed out had something to do with including new voices, came long after the traditional virtues had been transformed out of existence.

"Most people back then didn't really have a voice in the debate. Crime among the peasants was largely ignored by the lords (though not the Church, of course), unless the lord's interest was affected in some way, and punishment for such was usually swift and physically brutal if not lethal. You don't need prisons for dead people, only burial space. Much more economical."

Most people back then lived fairly autonomous lives that were impinged upon by external authority figures mostly at the margins. The ways in which power is at work in our lives today is much more sinister and pervasive and fine-grained than anything pre-moderns could even imagine. I wasn't kidding earlier when I said Foucault is good on this stuff.

"So I assume you have convincing evidence that the eradication of divorce also eliminated sexual infidelity, spousal abuse and child abuse, and positively resulted in married people leading more Godly lives in accordance with papal edicts?"

There's plenty of empirical evidence about how shitty divorce is for kids. (Not that it matters; removing divorce from a culture like ours would be a disaster!) There are a whole host of other problems that come along with getting rid of divorce in Christian cultures, but not nearly as bad as the problems that follow from divorce.

"you, sir, reveal yourself to not only be an incurable romanticist about human history, but an abject power-worshipper as well. You'd really rather be a total subject of some lord, with your life to be given or taken at his whim, and absolutely no chance of ever changing your status, than someone who, while he may be a criminal, actually has a chance (however small), of escaping his underclass situation and redeeming himself to the rest of humanity?"

You, sir or madam, have an overly romantic vision of how power works in our world today. If you seriously think being a 13th century serf involved having less control over the details of your daily life than does being part of today's criminal underclass, you are underinformed.

"the "criminal underclass" is a tiny minority. Two million people in prison, shameful as it is, is still less than 1% of Americans."

That's two million at any given time! The criminal underclass is many times larger than that, and certainly not a "tiny minority".

"If you'd like to empty out our prisons, maybe you should get off your moral high horse and stop making "getting high," a behavior you may find morally repugnant, grounds for imprisonment!"

You think I support criminalizing getting high? Hardly.

"But no, you'd rather cackle with glee that your neighbors have to travel over one county to buy beer."

I guess the distinction between wanting people to have access to beer and wine (which I do), and wanting to have beer and wine available on every street corner (which I don't, and which is what we were voting on), is lost on you. The public parks where I live are clean, and the (mostly poor, mostly Hispanic) people who use them enjoy them with their kids. In nearby cities, the public parks are overflowing with empty beer cans and used condoms and drug paraphernalia and gangs, and people don't let their kids near them. But my voting to keep restrictions on the sale of beer and wine (in a city that already allows the sale of all forms of liquor in restaurants) is proof to you that I'm "cackling" at my neighbors. As has been said many times in this thread, Christ, what an asshole!

"Because while you're a power-worshipper (at least of those you see as "legitimate" authority) to those above you, to those you see as being beneath you (almost everyone else) you're the rightful, God-decreed and logical arbiter of What Is Right and What Is Wrong. You seem like you'd be an absolutely perfect specimen of a member of an egotistical dominating bureaucratic hierarchy! :)"

It won't surprise you that I think you are wrong. Furthermore, I think the categories you are working with ("egotistical dominating bureaucratic hierarchy" and all your talk about--of course!--individual psychology), while they are indeed useful, do not illuminate nearly as much as you think they do.

"And for a Catholic, you sure sound apocalyptically doomerish!"

Indeed. I take comfort in the fact that many if not most intelligent Catholics are much more optimistic than I am. That is, when I'm not depressed about how optimistic they are. That's one of the reasons it pisses me off when people dismiss me because they think my views are just parrotting views received from religious authorities. No, I've actually thought about this stuff and come to some rationally defensible views about them, and I find that usually the people I talk to are parrotting views they could not defend in any detail if their lives depended on it. (Not saying that includes you.)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:59 PM on November 29, 2006

Aw, come on, peeping_Thomist, say you're including us. We'll get upset and we'll reach 1730 for sure!
posted by cgc373 at 6:19 PM on November 29, 2006

Oh, and cortex, you were supposed to put that comma inside the quotation marks. It's anti-American pseudo-communitardian propagandistic crap to just slop your commas wherever the sam frickin' heckinpah you feel like sloppin' 'em, just as it's a heathenish aberration of nature (and probably of natural law, too—in fact, of all that's good or just or both) to fuck up your apostrophes by swappin' 'em with opening single quotation marks. Pandas weep! Science Penis gnashes its teeth! Derails occur! Don't fuckin' do it!

Of course, I realize you didn't, in fact, do it. I'm trolling. But just in a fun way. Not a real troll. Nuh uh.
posted by cgc373 at 6:30 PM on November 29, 2006

That's one of the reasons it pisses me off when people dismiss me because they think my views are just parrotting views received from religious authorities.

actually, for the record, i recognized that you had your own take on catholic thought ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:32 PM on November 29, 2006

pyramid termite: "i daresay serfdom is a form of incarceration ... "

I agree. And I'd rather be a 13th century serf than a member of the 21st century criminal underclass.

"at least we convict people of things before we deprive them of their freedom ... "

B.F.D. Moralistic bullcrap.

"when i talk about human imperfection and the failure to resist temptation, you act as though i'm speaking martian ... which is a rather odd thing to do for a self-professed christian ... "

Yes. You are the product of and advocate for a political system that is incapable of transmitting the virtues from one generation to the next in any coherent fashion, as anything more robust than an "alternative lifestyle" like the recent Wendell Berry-style "crunchy cons" phenomenon, and then you wheel around and blame the victims of that political system for their failure to bootstrap their way to overcoming their imperfections and resisting temptations. Way to go!

"we are not just passive victims ... we are also perpetrators ... "

No shit!

Advocates of bureaucratic individualism need to think long and hard about what implications that fact has for how our common life should be structured. Hint: "the accidental result of a disjointed hodgepodge of criterionless 'individual' choices" is not the right answer.

"i bet you think that russia is a western liberal society, too ... "

I'm using four terms, taken over from MacIntyre: "bureaucratic individualism," which equals "liberalism", together with three varieties of liberalism: conservative liberalism (e.g., Burke), liberal liberalism (Kant, Rawls, Rorty, etc...), and radical liberalism (the French terror, modern totalitarianisms). I understand that many people find this usage confusing and offensive, but I find it helpful.

"he has no idea what being a serf or a thug is really like"

Not sure I follow. You think I'd actually prefer being a thug to being a serf?

"if the stores refused to stop selling, then the people running them would have to be imprisoned to stop them, wouldn't they?"

It'll never happen. These are huge corporations. Obeying local laws is part of the cost of doing business. But every two years, Wal-Mart and other carpetbaggers fund petition drives to try to change the law in our city, and eventually they will win. It's a perfect illustration of how the rapacity of capitalism dissolves every local form of community.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:45 PM on November 29, 2006

cgc373: "Aw, come on, peeping_Thomist, say you're including us. We'll get upset and we'll reach 1730 for sure!"

Let's put it this way. I'm not saying I'm including you, but I'm certainly not saying that I'm not including you, if you catch my drift.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:51 PM on November 29, 2006

B.F.D. Moralistic bullcrap.

that's not an argument

Yes. You are the product of and advocate for a political system that is incapable of transmitting the virtues from one generation to the next in any coherent fashion, as anything more robust than an "alternative lifestyle" like the recent Wendell Berry-style "crunchy cons" phenomenon, and then you wheel around and blame the victims of that political system for their failure to bootstrap their way to overcoming their imperfections and resisting temptations. Way to go!

and that's an even more elaborate straw man

I understand that many people find this usage confusing and offensive,

it's not even relevant to much of the world's history ... it's taking a set of concepts from western history and thought and forcing it over whatever the hell you find, whether it fits or not

You think I'd actually prefer being a thug to being a serf?

i don't have an informed opinion on that ... more importantly, neither do you
posted by pyramid termite at 6:57 PM on November 29, 2006

Ooo. A little bit of the ol' passive-aggressive. "Dirty pool, old man. I like it."
posted by cgc373 at 7:05 PM on November 29, 2006

But every two years, Wal-Mart and other carpetbaggers fund petition drives to try to change the law in our city, and eventually they will win. It's a perfect illustration of how the rapacity of capitalism dissolves every local form of community.

hmm ... this troubles me ... what does a person, or a corporation have to do, or how long do they have to live in a place, to not be considered a carpetbagger?

one can argue that corporations aren't people, of course ... but they still play some kind of role in the community ... and let's face it ... it's people putting those petitions out there ... even if they work for wal-mart or the local beer distributor, they are members of the community, not mere carpetbaggers, right?

if it was ma and pa local store proposing the petition, would you still have the same objection? ... would you call them carpetbaggers?

and another question for you ... what human attributes does the rapacity of capitalism use to persuade people and if people are not sufficiently inoculated with the virtues to resist, what steps should the more enlightened take? ... and should these steps be enforced with state violence, including prison?

what, really, is the difference between walmart beer prohibition and drug prohibition?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:08 PM on November 29, 2006

pyramid termite: "That's one of the reasons it pisses me off when people dismiss me because they think my views are just parrotting views received from religious authorities.

actually, for the record, i recognized that you had your own take on catholic thought ..."

I'd like to elaborate on that point for a moment. In the liberal tradition, "rational defensibility" is a matter of articulating your claims in terms that allow them to be vindicated according to standards that are accessible to any minimally rational agent whatsoever. This makes holding rationally defensible views both far too easy and far too difficult. It is far too easy, because all you have to do to secure rational defensibility is make sure that all of your claims concern logical entailments between propositions, while the "first principles" from which you reason remain safely out of harm's way, not subject to rational scrutiny because they are known by "intuition" or some other arbitrary and absurd method. And it is far too difficult, because at the end of the day, all that ever ends up being rationally defensible in the tradition of liberalism are trivialities (logic-chopping), while all the really important moves are made outside the guidance of reason.

In the Catholic tradition, in contrast, holding rationally defensible views is both more difficult and less difficult than in the tradition of liberalism. It is more difficult, because you must familiarize yourself with and become competent in working with a wide range of authoritative texts and modes of interpretation, but it is less difficult because the really important stuff stays there on the page, as it were, where you can interrogate it and it remains subject to the scrutiny of reason (as understood within the Catholic tradition, of course -- no one would be silly enough to say that what is rationally defensible within the Catholic tradition is able to be vindicated according to standards that are accessible to any minimally rational agent whatsoever).

So when you say I have my own "take" on the Catholic tradition, I must resist you slightly. Yes, the way I read the Catholic tradition isn't the same as the way everyone in the Catholic tradition reads it, but there are enough figures in the tradition who do read it as I do, such as Newman, that I'm not just making stuff up, or giving my own idiosyncratic "take" on it. This is important, because I wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm claiming that my views are rationally defensible because I somehow have found a standpoint outside of the tradition from which I'm able to vindicate them. There is no such standpoint. If my views are rationally defensible, it is because they are rationally defensible within the Catholic tradition.

(I'm not saying you were saying otherwise, but the way you put this seemed to me to invite misunderstanding.)

Perhaps the point I was trying to make in the comment to which you are responding is that it is annoying to see (1) how little liberals typically understand what a properly functioning tradition looks like, and (2) how little effort liberals typically put into thinking through to the foundations of their own tradition.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:21 PM on November 29, 2006

pyramid termite: "what does a person, or a corporation have to do, or how long do they have to live in a place, to not be considered a carpetbagger?

It's not primarily a matter of how long you've been there. It's how you are there. Some people live their whole lives in the same place without every putting down any roots where they live.

"it's people putting those petitions out there ... even if they work for wal-mart or the local beer distributor, they are members of the community, not mere carpetbaggers, right?"

Is it? Are they? Do they live in my city? Certainly the people at the top who decide what Wal-Mart's policy is going to be don't live where I live; they are responsible for whole regions of stores. They just want to be able to sell the same things at all their stores so they can run them more efficiently using their world-famous computer inventory system. Our city is just an annoyance to them.

What about the people who stand on the street or go door to door and get paid to gather signatures. (Funny, the opposition force, made up entirely of locals, runs totally on volunteer labor and donations to do the brochures and post the lawn signs and go door to door, but the pro-alcohol folks are always "just doing their job" -- as they always explain to me each time I confront them.) Do you seriously think that the fact that there are pathetic people who have to work at Wal-Mart and are willing to, for pay, promote alcohol sales at grocery and convenience stores, tells me anything interesting about what the people in my community really think is best for our community?

"if it was ma and pa local store proposing the petition, would you still have the same objection? ... would you call them carpetbaggers?"

I would have many of the same objections, but I wouldn't call them carpetbaggers. We could have a reasonable disagreement about whether what they wanted was best for our community.

By the way, before there was money pouring in from outside, there wasn't a push from the local business people for relaxing the restrictions. This is a good city, and a good place to do business. The push for relaxing alcohol sales is a function of people who do not live here wanting to make money by smoothing out a bump in the road, namely the place where I live, to make it just the same as every other place where they do business.

"and another question for you ... what human attributes does the rapacity of capitalism use to persuade people and if people are not sufficiently inoculated with the virtues to resist, what steps should the more enlightened take? ... and should these steps be enforced with state violence, including prison?"

I don't see it as a matter of "more enlightened" people lording it over less enlightened people. I see it as a matter of people living together in a community in a way that works and makes sense.

You seem to be trying to get me to say that "pleonexia" is a basic part of the human condition, but it is not true, so I will not say it. There is a distinction, fundamental to the tradition of the virtues, between the passions in their uneducated state, and the passions in their tutored or educated state. When we first come to ourselves, our passions are flying off in all directions. We literally are attracted to almost anything we see. That's why grocery stores put candy bars near the checkout counters, because children see them and cry for them. But that is not "pleonexia," that is untutored desire. When human desire is reasonably shaped and formed, it becomes trained to seek out the appropriate kinds of objects, on the appropriate kinds of occasions, in the appropriate manner, to the appropriate extent, etc... Educating the passions is not about putting a damper on the passions, or curbing them, or putting restraints on the pursuit of what liberals think of as "self-interest", it is about directing the passions so that they function well, in the best way possible for them.

Your way of speaking, of the virtues "innoculating" one to "resist" the passions, is characteristic of how liberal theorists systematically misrepresent the virtues.

"what, really, is the difference between walmart beer prohibition and drug prohibition?"

Wal-Mart executives don't have any interest in violating the laws. They'll change them the old-fashioned way, by paying money for it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:54 PM on November 29, 2006

Well, I, for one, am glad we cleared all this up.
posted by darkstar at 8:10 PM on November 29, 2006

I haven't seen darkstar participating before, so I'm not sure how to take the comment, there, except to ADD IT TO THE BIG BOARD. We're going all the way, people!

Bring your carpetbaggers and your huddled masses yearning to eat free high-fructose corn syrup! It's ON!
posted by cgc373 at 8:19 PM on November 29, 2006

Random sampling from upthread:

Oh, now I get it! Peeping_Thom is married to Kornholia!

Kornholia! Oh man, that's simultaneously awesome and incredibly weak. Mostly just weak, but, hey.
posted by cortex at 8:47 PM on November 29, 2006

"Most people back then lived fairly autonomous lives that were impinged upon by external authority figures mostly at the margins."

If you're talking about the 13th century, I disagree entirely, in fact I think you're completely wrong. Between the Church and the various feudal lords and empires, the common people pretty much had the boot on their necks the whole time. If you're talking about the era around 1750, especially in America, then that's probably true.

"The ways in which power is at work in our lives today is much more sinister and pervasive and fine-grained than anything pre-moderns could even imagine. I wasn't kidding earlier when I said Foucault is good on this stuff."

On this, I agree with you completely. It's all been done much more subtly and behind our backs. Consumerism is often being used as a tool of control, rather than the previous favorite, naked force. This requires great awareness and vigilance, as well as education, to overcome.

"You, sir or madam, have an overly romantic vision of how power works in our world today."

Last I looked it's 'sir,' and because of my previous statement I deny this. I'm keenly interested in modern power relationships, and suffer few illusions about them. Yeah, it's ugly, and complicated, but I think most prefer it to serfdom and constant wars between petty nobles. The Germans were still divided into hundreds of constantly-squabbling baronies almost to the 19th century.

"There's plenty of empirical evidence about how shitty divorce is for kids."

I'll vouch for that. My parents are divorced, and it made things difficult for me. However, had they stayed married, things would have been just as bad. I count myself as fairly lucky that I've done all right despite that, but the problems stemmed a lot more from my mom's abusive upbringing (within a marriage that did not divorce, btw) and her resulting poor choice in men than in her ability to get a divorce.

"There are a whole host of other problems that come along with getting rid of divorce in Christian cultures, but not nearly as bad as the problems that follow from divorce."

But the culture in which divorce was eradicated was one in which women were little more than property, first of their fathers and then of their husbands, and were expected to be dutiful and obeisant to their lord-master-men, not to mention denied education and culturally trained to their "place." As it would seem highly unlikely that a culture which gives women freedom of choice and an equal citizenship status to men could also forbid divorce, you seem to be implying that a culture where women are chattel is desirable. I suppose that's in line with Church doctrine, so that's not inconsistent. It used to be that you could punch out your wife with not only impunity, but the approval of your community, if she disobeyed you. Do you think this is appropriate and civilized?

"That's two million at any given time! The criminal underclass is many times larger than that, and certainly not a "tiny minority"."

Before we continue on that tack, you should give us your definition of the "criminal underclass." That would be helpful.

"But my voting to keep restrictions on the sale of beer and wine (in a city that already allows the sale of all forms of liquor in restaurants) is proof to you that I'm "cackling" at my neighbors."

You didn't make that particular distinction clear, so I understand better now. Even so, how would allowing wine and beer sales in any retail location change the behavior of the current residents of your community? They can go elsewhere to get drink and bring it back, nothing is currently stopping people from filling your parks with imported beer cans. Do you think that having beer at the 7-11 across the street is going to turn your currently well-behaved neighbors into criminal hooligans?

"It's a perfect illustration of how the rapacity of capitalism dissolves every local form of community."

I fail to see how allowing beer and wine sales outside of restaurants would dissolve your local community. Shouldn't your solid, well-behaved community be able to withstand such availability? Wouldn't your community's ability to continue operating as it is now despite the vote-poll victory of the rapacious capitalists be by far the most effective method of combatting the incursion, since by your admission the plebiscite is going to eventually fail?

"Furthermore, I think the categories you are working with ("egotistical dominating bureaucratic hierarchy" and all your talk about--of course!--individual psychology), while they are indeed useful, do not illuminate nearly as much as you think they do."

Such a hierarchy is both a group psychology and a collection of individual psychologies. These words are perhaps clumsy, but I'm not sure I can find better words to describe my thoughts. I do consider the collective as well as the individual, though perhaps not as clearly. From things you have said, you sound to me like someone who would fit into such a hierarchy both as an individual and a cohesive part of the collective, and feel quite comfortable there.

The danger in this is that while the individuals may mean well, the collective may be harmful, even vicious, in its purpose and actions. There have been many, many examples of this. Individuals who fit so well into such a collective may be inherently unable to discern its collective good or evil, because it's doing so well by them.

"You are the product of and advocate for a political system that is incapable of transmitting the virtues from one generation to the next in any coherent fashion... you wheel around and blame the victims of that political system for their failure to bootstrap their way to overcoming their imperfections and resisting temptations. Way to go!

and that's an even more elaborate straw man"

I wouldn't discount this, pyramid, I can see his point about this. There is some fundamental incoherence to how our "citizen education" system works, and it's something that we should address because serious problems do stem from it. Not saying this is an effective argument here, but we do need to own our own beams in the eye.

"It is more difficult, because you must familiarize yourself with and become competent in working with a wide range of authoritative texts and modes of interpretation, but it is less difficult because the really important stuff stays there on the page, as it were, where you can interrogate it and it remains subject to the scrutiny of reason"

i.e., a readymade Appeal To Authority. You do see this, right? The process of becoming competent in the Catholic tradition requires that you first believe it to be the proper path, and allowing yourself to be indoctrinated by it, thus shaping your definition of what it means to scrutinize by reason.

"(1) how little liberals typically understand what a properly functioning tradition looks like,"

We dispute your definition of a properly functioning tradition. It functions properly within a very narrow range of conditions, most of which are oppressive to the general populace. Humanity has attempted to shrug off the Daddy State for a reason, but not always with success. Perhaps we still haven't, and our freedom is in part illusory, but we really don't want to go backwards to a past that almost everyone on earth has fought bitterly and bloodily to escape. We're not going to solve the problems of today by returning to old traditions, though certainly we can draw wisdom from them.

Yes, everything is simpler and easier when Daddy is telling you what to do and what to think and provides for your needs. We just don't want to be children anymore, we want to grow up - even those people who tend to fall into a child-like role still feel that want, though most of them can't really understand or express it. Humanity is in collective early adolescence right now, and yeah it's a mess. But it's a necessary stage of our existence.

"Educating the passions is not about putting a damper on the passions, or curbing them, or putting restraints on the pursuit of what liberals think of as "self-interest", it is about directing the passions so that they function well, in the best way possible for them."

Now this, this is laudable. I can get behind this. I believe that by these terms, I've somehow been able to come to where I do my best to direct my passions well and constructively (with, I admit, varying degrees of success, but mostly success) on my own, via my completely non-religious education (though not without input from religious thought) - which is more what I mean about being in line with Christian principles, as opposed to adhering to specific doctrinal items like the Eucharist.

Since I personally, and many of my friends and acquaintances, are also pretty good about this sort of thing, I'm not convinced that such direction of passions can't be accomplished within a liberalist framework.

Onward to 1750!
posted by zoogleplex at 9:22 PM on November 29, 2006

Yeah, pretty weak, cortex. peeping_Thomist has almost nothing in common with konolia, faith-wise, except possession of it. konolia and Ted Haggard have plenty in common, as born-again, evangelical, sort of "hardcore" Christians. They align with Stephen Baldwin's Livin' It ministry and literal readings of the Bible. None of that stuff fits peeping_Thomist's beliefs. Many places upthread, he evinces near-contempt for such beliefs, seeing them as corruptive deviations from a once-healthy traditional Christianity, and twice-corrupt, too, being fruits of both misinterpreted traditional Protestantism as well as crackpot "liberalism" in its U.S. clothes, its Sunday-go-to-meetin' garb. "Consumerist" is p_T's label, I think.

Considering some of the vituperation thrown p_T's way in this thread—some of which is carried over from elsewhere, in what looks like an epoch-making (by MetaFilter standards) thread on contraception's legitimacy—he's been remarkably civil. I've seen his civility called trolling, but if it's trolling, it's far more masterful than any such I've encountered before.
posted by cgc373 at 9:23 PM on November 29, 2006

And might I note how awesome it is that I could compose my brief comment and have it boxed out by a thoughtful response to a continuing conversation that's still on-topic, ongoing after almost a month? It's Prime Time on MetaFilter, people. Recognize! 1750 or bust!
posted by cgc373 at 9:33 PM on November 29, 2006

Indeed. It's like we're kibbitzing in box seats and watching the game.
posted by cortex at 9:56 PM on November 29, 2006

Why thanks, cgc. *bows* I admit being judgmental about p_T, and that it doesn't show well, but I enjoy this conversation a lot, and find that he and I are concerned about some similar things, though we approach from different angles and posit very different solutions.

"Many places upthread, he evinces near-contempt for such beliefs, seeing them as corruptive deviations from a once-healthy traditional Christianity, and twice-corrupt, too, being fruits of both misinterpreted traditional Protestantism as well as crackpot "liberalism" in its U.S. clothes, its Sunday-go-to-meetin' garb. "Consumerist" is p_T's label, I think."

Apart from the idea of a once healthy traditional Christianity, I pretty much agree with p_T on the rest of this. I think this peculiarly American fundamentalist phenomenon is a dangerous set of ideas that contradict Christ's teachings as I read them (though not so much Paul's).
posted by zoogleplex at 10:09 PM on November 29, 2006

Surprisingly good game, too, irregardless of my judgements. cortex, you wanna swing into MeTa and take a shot at explaining to stav what the beef is with the Firefox "irregardless" add thing? My explanation doesn't.
posted by cgc373 at 10:11 PM on November 29, 2006

It's not primarily a matter of how long you've been there. It's how you are there.

and who gets to be the judge of that? ... i know that generally a city will say one has to be a resident for such and such a time to vote ... which is a fairly verifiable metric

but here you are, talking about putting roots down and all ...

Do you seriously think that the fact that there are pathetic people who have to work at Wal-Mart and are willing to, for pay, promote alcohol sales at grocery and convenience stores, tells me anything interesting about what the people in my community really think is best for our community?

i seriously think that the fact that you regard them as pathetic tells us something about you ... as well your opinion that the carpetbaggers' opinions shouldn't count as much as your opinions

let's face it ... you do not believe that *everyone* should have a say in the running of society, but only the "right" people should

I don't see it as a matter of "more enlightened" people lording it over less enlightened people. I see it as a matter of people living together in a community in a way that works and makes sense.

to the enlightened people ... somehow, you'll manage to be so persuasive to the unenlightened people that they'll willingly follow you ... (and hey, i guess when it comes to beer sales, so far they have) ... it works unless they stop listening ... or you're not as enlightened as you think

You seem to be trying to get me to say that "pleonexia" is a basic part of the human condition, but it is not true, so I will not say it.

then it's just something that people do a lot, right? ... and after "mom" and "dad" what's the 3rd word a toddler learns? ... "MINE!"

Educating the passions is not about putting a damper on the passions, or curbing them, or putting restraints on the pursuit of what liberals think of as "self-interest", it is about directing the passions so that they function well, in the best way possible for them.

except that by the time we are dealing with adult desires, they generally aren't passions at all ... if you think that your wal mart executives are acting from some kind of passion ... no, it's cold logic ...

Your way of speaking, of the virtues "innoculating" one to "resist" the passions, is characteristic of how liberal theorists systematically misrepresent the virtues.

you don't even seem to understand the "passions" that well ... but one of the problems with our discussion here is that we're running around in circles ... no matter what i say, or what i argue, it seems that it becomes a product of liberal theory and that i'm a liberal theorist and that you need no other rebuttal than that ... you certainly don't need to explain how a casual description of virtues "innoculating" one to "resist" is a systematic representation of anything ... i'm flattered, but your view of my statement is quite pretentious ...

but then i suppose that if i was just some factory rat typing a bunch of stuff online instead of a high-falutin' liberal theorist, it wouldn't make you feel so important when you refute me ...

but here's the thing ...

ll you have to do to secure rational defensibility is make sure that all of your claims concern logical entailments between propositions, while the "first principles" from which you reason remain safely out of harm's way, not subject to rational scrutiny because they are known by "intuition" or some other arbitrary and absurd method. And it is far too difficult, because at the end of the day, all that ever ends up being rationally defensible in the tradition of liberalism are trivialities (logic-chopping), while all the really important moves are made outside the guidance of reason.

it's all about the assumptions one makes, isn't it? ... everyone makes them, even if, ESPECIALLY if they're not aware they're making them ... you seem to have mistaken me for someone else here, because i actually understand this about various philosophies ... that no matter what, they start from an assumption about something

now, how does a society mediate between two or more sets of people with different assumptions? ... which assumptions are so incompatible with other assumptions that a society would not be workable if they were stubbornly adhered to? ... which assumptions create conflict, which ones create harmony?

that, to me, is the liberal view, right there ... and it is not so much of a viewpoint as a process

you have a set of assumptions, too, but what i don't see is any kind of engagement with the idea that there are other sets of assumptions ... if not able to dictate those assumptions to others, then we see groups like yours practice a self-conscious elitism and cultural separatism ... but there never seems to be a full fledged acceptance that there is that other and that there will continue to be that other and that other should exist

so you can look at the folly of a ted haggard and reflect, above all, that this is what happens when people start their own churches so they can make their own doctrine ... you can look at the confusion and babble of liberal discourse and think this is what happens when people make up assumptions about people and life and rights that can't be proven (never mind that yours can't be proven, they don't have to be, they're right) ... and then you can tell us that we don't understand the tradition of the virtues and that we're lost sheep without them and the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of it and what we think is totally wrong and you'd just as soon not deal with it ... but ...

if in some ways, we were able to express something of the virtues you respect, would you recognize it? ... would you be able to engage it? ... or would you just dismiss it as more liberalism?

frankly, i think liberalism is your bugbear, your symbol for all that's wrong with the world and society and it's blinded you to what is right with them ... it wouldn't be so hard for me to say that catholicism has done something good in the world, you know - is it so hard for you to say that liberalism has done something good as well?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:13 PM on November 29, 2006

I think you did fine. And stav is a bright lad, he'll figure it out well enough.

Respective of which:

liberalism is your bugbear

reminds me that someone was talking recently about always mistaking bugbread's nick as bugbear, and a brief argument proceeding from a specimen of said confusion about whether or not "bugbear" was common enough of a word outside of D&D manuals to make accidental systematic replacement by the erring party a reasonable thing. I think the general conclusion was yes. Which seems right.

But what that reminded me of just now is that I don't know what in the hell "bugbread" is. Bread made of ants?
posted by cortex at 10:26 PM on November 29, 2006

I wouldn't discount this, pyramid, I can see his point about this. There is some fundamental incoherence to how our "citizen education" system works,

if he wants to say that some advocate that position, fine, but he shouldn't be saying that i do

it seems like hyperbole, anyway ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:28 PM on November 29, 2006

confusion about whether or not "bugbear" was common enough of a word outside of D&D manuals

they have bugbears in d&d manuals?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 PM on November 29, 2006

do they ever!
posted by cortex at 10:36 PM on November 29, 2006

Them bugbears is mighty bad to be runnin' into down in the dungeon. They're mean as hell and heavily armed with magic and claws and teeth. I've killed off half a party with one of them more than once, naughty DM tha I was... ;)
posted by zoogleplex at 11:44 PM on November 29, 2006

zoogleplex and cortex, you've reminded me of an editorial from Dragon from back in the day, about "Tucker's Kobolds." Those fucking kobolds inspired some terrific PC fear. Good times.
posted by cgc373 at 1:51 AM on November 30, 2006

And let us speak not of gazebos...
posted by cortex at 7:01 AM on November 30, 2006

For Christ's sake, I was kidding! Talk about gazebos! Or anything!
posted by cortex at 9:23 AM on November 30, 2006

zoogleplex: "Between the Church and the various feudal lords and empires, the common people pretty much had the boot on their necks the whole time."

Sure, but there's "the whole time" in the 13th century, with the church bells tolling for the Angelus at six am, noon and again at six pm, having to do seasonal labor for one's lord, all the while trying to save enough money to attain manumission, and then there's "the whole time" as things have developed since the 19th century, with power streaming every second into every orifice and every pore.

"If you're talking about the era around 1750, especially in America, then that's probably true."

Let me be very clear: I would much rather be an early 18th century American yeoman than either a 13th century Western European serf or a member of the 21st century American criminal underclass. But I'd rather still be a 15th century English yeoman, but in a society in which everyone has a chance to become a yeoman. In case you were wondering. (I hope it's obvious that I'm in favor of Chesterton/Belloc-style distributism, but don't see it as currently realizable on anything like a large scale.)

"Consumerism is often being used as a tool of control, rather than the previous favorite, naked force. This requires great awareness and vigilance, as well as education, to overcome."

I'm pleased that you, though not pyramid_termite, seem to realize that the relevant kinds of awareness, vigilance, and education are not matters of individual resolve.

"Yeah, it's ugly, and complicated, but I think most prefer it to serfdom and constant wars between petty nobles. The Germans were still divided into hundreds of constantly-squabbling baronies almost to the 19th century."

(1) Please explain to me why having humans grouped into hundreds (or thousands) of squabbling groups is inferior to having them collected into modern nation-states.

(2) Have you run the numbers, looked at the math? War is a constant. There always has been and always will be war. Which centuries have been the bloodiest? Give me squabbling baronies any day.

"the problems stemmed a lot more from my mom's abusive upbringing (within a marriage that did not divorce, btw) and her resulting poor choice in men than in her ability to get a divorce."

You'll get no argument from me on that.

"As it would seem highly unlikely that a culture which gives women freedom of choice and an equal citizenship status to men could also forbid divorce, you seem to be implying that a culture where women are chattel is desirable."

Not so. I want a community in which lovers can make public promises to each other and be held to account for them. When people seek to be completely united in marriage, they want to declare that I am for this person even if at some point in the future I become mad and think I no longer want to be for him or her. A (Christian) culture that would allow spouses to retract such promises would be like Odysseus's soldiers untying him from the mast even after he had made them promise not to untie him no matter how much he begged them to do it. And the result would be equally disastrous.

"you should give us your definition of the "criminal underclass." That would be helpful."

No kidding. I should do lots of things, but there are only so many stolen minutes in the day available for posting to mefi. :(

"Even so, how would allowing wine and beer sales in any retail location change the behavior of the current residents of your community?"

The same way it did in all the neighboring cities that have changed their laws. Do you think they used to have unusable public parks?

"They can go elsewhere to get drink and bring it back, nothing is currently stopping people from filling your parks with imported beer cans."

True. And yet they don't.

"Do you think that having beer at the 7-11 across the street is going to turn your currently well-behaved neighbors into criminal hooligans?"

No. I would be able to walk to the local 7-11 (another multinational corporation that funds these ballot initiatives) to get some beer or wine whenever we ran out, instead of having to plan on getting it on our next trip through a nearby city (a 10 minute drive at most). It would just lower the tone a notch or two. But that notch or two can be enough. For a neighborhood to go bad, there doesn't have to be widespread hooliganism. There are "tipping points" for these phenomena.

"I fail to see how allowing beer and wine sales outside of restaurants would dissolve your local community. Shouldn't your solid, well-behaved community be able to withstand such availability? Wouldn't your community's ability to continue operating as it is now despite the vote-poll victory of the rapacious capitalists be by far the most effective method of combatting the incursion, since by your admission the plebiscite is going to eventually fail?"

Sometimes you seem like a sharp enough guy, but this line of reasoning is just silly. I don't know if you have ever watched a neighborhood "turn" and crime rates dramatically change, but you seem to have no way of making sense (back to my favorite theme) of how individuals are parts of communities. Going back to Aristotle, every theorist of the virtues has acknowledged the role that political authority must play in creating and sustaining a well-ordered community.

"I do consider the collective as well as the individual, though perhaps not as clearly."

And yet you can't make any sense of how changes in how alcohol is sold could affect neighborhoods? Yeah, I'd say that you are not yet considering the collective (the "collective"?) nearly as "clearly" as you need to be!

"Humanity has attempted to shrug off the Daddy State for a reason"

The idea that I want a "Daddy State" is just wrong.

"We're not going to solve the problems of today by returning to old traditions,"

As though you can even think through to the bottom of what the "problems of today" are!

"though certainly we can draw wisdom from them."

Not so as anyone can tell.

"Yes, everything is simpler and easier when Daddy is telling you what to do and what to think and provides for your needs. We just don't want to be children anymore, we want to grow up - even those people who tend to fall into a child-like role still feel that want, though most of them can't really understand or express it. Humanity is in collective early adolescence right now, and yeah it's a mess. But it's a necessary stage of our existence."

That is bullshit, and here's the psychological explanation of it: treating your ancestors as children allows you to pretend to have accomplished something impressive while at the same time avoiding having to confront the radical challenges they pose to your most fundamental assumptions. You need to read a lot more Nietzsche. Seriously. The idea that you, enlightened by your puny psychological theories, are well-positioned to dismiss someone like Sophocles as part of the "childhood" of humanity would be offensive were it not so small-minded.

pyramid termite: "it's all about the assumptions one makes, isn't it? ... everyone makes them, even if, ESPECIALLY if they're not aware they're making them ... you seem to have mistaken me for someone else here, because i actually understand this about various philosophies ... that no matter what, they start from an assumption about something"

That is indeed the fundamental dogma of liberalism, and you pride yourself on being able to repeat it chapter and verse from your catechism. Too bad the dogma is wrong. It is not true that "no matter what, they start from an assumption about something". There actually is such a thing as human nature, and it's not infinitely malleable, and conflict is not just a matter of different assumptions. And I can make that point without having to assume that the Catholic tradition is "the Truth" -- I need only claim something that can be demonstrated, that the Catholic tradition is rationally superior to the tradition of liberalism. Rational superiority does not guarantee truth, in ethical matters any more than in scientific ones.

(This brings me back to a point I made with bardic: I've spent a few years learning the liberal tradition from the inside out; how well do you liberals know the Catholic tradition? There's plenty of room here for responsibility-shifting: it's not necessarily your job to refute the Catholic tradition, but isn't it somebody's? If I asked why we believe the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, you would be able to point me to someone who knows the answer. So far as I have been able to tell there are no liberal theorists who understand the Catholic tradition well enough to be able to responsibly address the question of whether or not it is rationally superior to the tradition of liberalism.)
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:37 AM on November 30, 2006

Please explain to me why having humans grouped into hundreds (or thousands) of squabbling groups is inferior to having them collected into modern nation-states.

One possible argument: with the scaling up of nations comes the scaling up of both motivation to achieve and capacity to accomplish distinguishing advantages in science, technology, art, etc. The larger the nation, the greater the leverage and the greater the potential national pride and profit in fielding some line of growth or inquiry in art and science. These achievements may act on the short term in the private interest of the nation responsible and its people and allies and etc, but in the long run humanity is bettered as a whole.

Taken to the extreme, the eventual acheivement of some Kurzweil-esque fundamental upward shift in human existence may well depend on the kind of development only manageable by weild resources solely the domain of millions-sized nations.

That's compeltely armchair, of course. I just couldn't go back to the gazebo thing in any substance.
posted by cortex at 9:52 AM on November 30, 2006

cortex: "with the scaling up of nations comes the scaling up of both motivation to achieve and capacity to accomplish distinguishing advantages in science, technology, art, etc. The larger the nation, the greater the leverage and the greater the potential national pride and profit in fielding some line of growth or inquiry in art and science."

Hmmm. And as part of the deal we get to have world wars and scores of new ways to annihilate all life on earth. I'm missing how this is an argument in support of modern nation-states.

"These achievements may act on the short term in the private interest of the nation responsible and its people and allies and etc, but in the long run humanity is bettered as a whole."

Oh, I see. "Humanity is bettered as a whole." Bettered by what standard?

"Taken to the extreme, the eventual acheivement of some Kurzweil-esque fundamental upward shift in human existence may well depend on the kind of development only manageable by weild resources solely the domain of millions-sized nations."

Now we're getting somewhere. Modern nation-states have demonstrably been a disaster for human beings, but none of this is really about creating ways of living together that are good for human beings after all, it's about some "fundamental upward shift in human existence" that you and your co-religionists hope will result from putting humanity through the past 300 years.

Just one question: what do you mean by "upward"?
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:24 AM on November 30, 2006

Hmmm. And as part of the deal we get to have world wars and scores of new ways to annihilate all life on earth. I'm missing how this is an argument in support of modern nation-states.

Yep. It's a bit of a clusterfuck, isn't it?

Oh, I see. "Humanity is bettered as a whole." Bettered by what standard?

By the standard that, in the long run, everybody on the planet ends up happier, healthier, and more capable of being at peace with themselves and others.

Note that I'm not proposing we are there or that the target is in sight. I'm suggesting that approaching that possiblility is an argument for large-nation technophilia as opposed to small-tribe technological stagnance.

you and your co-religionists

Holy shit, I have co-religionists? Can you go into detail? This is exciting news for me, honestly.

Just one question: what do you mean by "upward"?

Well, running with the general notion of the Singularity as I understand (to be clear: not very well—it's not my dogma, just something I've discussed with folks a few times):

upward = away from things that have made human life bad over the last millions years or so, and the last few thousand, and ongoing.

We get sick. We fight wars. We squabble isntead of sharing. We die. Upward would be some (hazyily prognosticated) change in that general state. The idea being that, eventually, we reach a degree of mastery over our bodies and our world at which things rapidly improve because they can. That's where the notion of the fundamental shift comes in, and that's why it is such a hazy and contentions notion: who knows how, when, or whether at all such a thing could be achieved. We might blow ourselves up first.

Arguing for the fundamental evolution of human existence to a higher and more universally enriched plane as the ends leads to the argument for any state of affairs, for however long, as the means. Local minima may be necessary to a curve that ultimately leads up past some otherwise limiting asymptote.

That's the argument as I understand it. By that reasonaing, and with the assumption improving our technology is the only way we could hope to achieve such results, then any system that manages to allow us to steadily and rapidly improves technology without wiping us out outright would have to be considered optimal.

I'd put it about on par with belief in life-after-death as reward for self-applied constraints on (and or spiritual concession of and request for redemption from) mortal behavior on earth as a practical guide to short-term actions, I guess. But then I'm an athiest—I think people should just be nice to each other on general principle.
posted by cortex at 12:52 PM on November 30, 2006

"You need to read a lot more Nietzsche. Seriously."

You mean this Nietzsche?

"In short, Nietzsche stated that the goal of mankind is to produce a being who can take absolute responsibility for himself, and that this can only be achieved by transcending nihilism, represented most prominently by Christian and platonic ideals.

It should be emphasized that the obstacles in becoming Übermensch are essentially internal, a matter of overcoming oneself (a notion also appearing in Christianity, though there the goal is submission to God). In Nietszche's words, the Übermensch must be "judge and avenger of [his] own law." It is not a question of dominating others[6]."(Wikipedia)

The Nietzsche who calls Christianity a "slave morality?" Do you agree with him that the Christian tradition you rely on is inherently nihilistic and in denial of material reality?

I will go read all of Nietzsche, as I've only read some bits and other peoples's evaluations, and I'm working off the "Cliff's Notes" version right now, which is probably counterproductive. Perhaps in our next meeting I'll be better equipped to meet you on this - I read very fast, but not fast enough to devour and process Nietzsche before Saturday. :)

"I'm pleased that you, though not pyramid_termite, seem to realize that the relevant kinds of awareness, vigilance, and education are not matters of individual resolve."

On the contrary, I think that awareness, vigilance and education are, given our current culture, most definitely matters of individual resolve! Of course, that stems from my own experience of having to do all the digging myself, but as I see it the onus is on each of us to create himself or herself into a functional person with strong sense of self and sense of relationship to community and humanity, which requires a great deal of difficult self-examination and relentless search for sources of information that in some cases are being actively hidden from us by those who wish to control. This seems to put me fairly well in line with Nietzsche.

"The idea that you, enlightened by your puny psychological theories, are well-positioned to dismiss someone like Sophocles as part of the "childhood" of humanity would be offensive were it not so small-minded."

I don't dismiss Sophocles, or any other great thinker and contributor to the questions of human life; individual humans - and also the various cultures - reach varying levels of maturity in their lifetimes; Sophocles as well as all the other philosophers represent a great maturity of thought and consideration, and the great civilizations of our past represent different levels of advancement to maturity.

However, collectively the entire human race - which we must consider as a whole, global entity - resembles at the geopolitical level a bunch of unsupervised 10-year olds on a playground, with different regions, nations, countries showing various levels of maturity. Perhaps my use of maturity levels we normally apply to individuals is kind of clumsy, and certainly simplistic at the level of detail I'm presenting in quick posts on a MeFi thread, but I think it's applicable. The shift away from allowing patriarchal individuals or organizations to tell us what to do, and toward demanding autonomy and self-governance mirrors the growth of an individual child to an adult.

We, collectively, are not yet behaving like adults. We're at a stage where it seems, like a stubborn adolescent, we're going to do what we want no matter what our "parents" tell us to do. Our "body" has grown and changed with extreme speed, and suddenly we have tremendous physical (and other kinds of) power, but we don't understand it fully and don't know how to handle it. Maybe we're learning - my way-upthread example that we used nukes once, but not since, encourages me on that score. This is a very dangerous time for us. However, there's very little a parent can do to assist their child through adolescence, other than try to offer as much love and guidance as possible while hanging back and letting the kid make his or her own mistakes. Applying the rod, as it were, is rarely helpful and usually counterproductive and dangerous - and there's a whole lot of attempt to "apply the rod" going on these days, via various means, resulting in completely predictable rebellion - although the "daddies" don't seem capable of predicting it!

Of course, the requirement of our present culture that each individual take responsibility for their personal development and societal integration may be counter to actual human nature; there's certainly some evidence for that, I think. However, I don't get the sense that Nietzsche believed so...

"treating your ancestors as children allows you to pretend to have accomplished something impressive while at the same time avoiding having to confront the radical challenges they pose to your most fundamental assumptions."

Submitting your will to a Daddy God and his anointed administrative authoritarian hierarchy - whether you do it without thinking or after years of study and examination - allows you to pretend to have accomplished something impressive while at the same time avoiding having to confront the radical challenges posed to your most fundamental assumptions.

The god I believe in is my father, but he's not my daddy.

I don't treat our ancestors as children, I look at humanity as being child-like in our development.

"I need only claim something that can be demonstrated, that the Catholic tradition is rationally superior to the tradition of liberalism."

Rationally superior, yes perhaps. I don't think any of us believe that current liberal society doesn't need some work. But more desirable, more appropriate, the proper way to order a culture? Very much open for dispute. Considering how humanity has, over a period of centuries, mostly rejected it, it seems we don't want it very much.

"(1) Please explain to me why having humans grouped into hundreds (or thousands) of squabbling groups is inferior to having them collected into modern nation-states."

Human beings are far more similar to each other than they are different.

Splintering into thousands of squabbling groups denies our inherent interrelations. Especially nowadays, when each person is dependent on a global network of interdepencies.

"(2) Have you run the numbers, looked at the math? War is a constant. There always has been and always will be war. Which centuries have been the bloodiest? Give me squabbling baronies any day."

War is not solely and simply defined by the number of dead bodies. There are deep qualitative and psychological/sociological aspects to war. War has to be examined for its reasons, its causes, its relationship to the warring parties, its results other than the piles of dead. It is not enough for us to throw up our hands and declare that war is a constant and is inevitable, so we might as well just give up and let it happen at some hypothetically "lower" level. Violent conflict must be resisted as much as we possibly can resist it.

I put to you that if we divided the 21st century world up into hundreds of thousands of little communities, that the death toll from inter-community conflict would equal or surpass that of the wars of the 20th century.

We've "evolved" past being tiny squabbling provinces because it doesn't work for us anymore. It's self-evident that collectively, we actually want to live in larger organized interrelated groups, or we wouldn't do it.

Jesus would say that we are all brothers. I agree with him. Thousands of little squabbling splinter groups is not brotherhood.

cortex, I agree with your armchair take as well, though Kurzweil's take on things rings very hollow, childish and utopian to me. As techno-nerdy as I am, I think we need to figure out what our humanity actually is before we attempt to transcend it...

"I don't know if you have ever watched a neighborhood "turn" and crime rates dramatically change, but you seem to have no way of making sense (back to my favorite theme) of how individuals are parts of communities."

I'm from Newark, New Jersey. Believe me, I've watched it happen right in front of me - and going both ways, too. One thing I've noticed is that when a few hooligans move in, I've observed two basic tendencies. One is that some of the "righteous, high quality" people suddenly lose their "community spirit," and move away out of fear (of various kinds), thus both dispiriting their neighbors and opening a vacuum for more hooligans, which starts the process rolling downhill. Alternatively, the community comes together as a whole to deal with the hooligans and show them where the limits of community-acceptable behavior lie, and the hooligans either leave or start behaving. One is a strong community, the other just appeared strong until its lack of actual community was exposed.

If a community of hundreds or thousands can't handle a few ruffians showing up, it's not much of a community, IMO.

What sort of community do you live in, p_T? Since you're all about creating strong, unified communities, how are you putting it into local practice? Isn't it a bit nihilistic to assume that you cannot successfully oppose the paid minions of a faceless corporation? I realize you're fighting them via your votes, but wouldn't fostering a truly strong community, with people resolved to disallow any behavior or intrusion that could be destabilizing, even in the face of it being established right in front of them within the physical bounds of the community, because they are educated as to the effects and dedicated to preserving their current (presumably comfortable) living conditions, be a much better weapon against them?

"The idea that I want a "Daddy State" is just wrong."

Oh yes, I understand your abhorrence of any kind of large State organization, but the difference between a monolithic Daddy State and thousands of splinter Daddy Communities may not be as important as you think. When every Daddy thinks things should be run His way, the Daddies will be fighting a lot, as they do now.

Plus it's just not possible given that humanity is now logistically interdependent at a global scale.

cortex: "By that reasonaing, and with the assumption improving our technology is the only way we could hope to achieve such results, then any system that manages to allow us to steadily and rapidly improves technology without wiping us out outright would have to be considered optimal."

I think the assumption that technology is the only way to achieve the results is dangerously limiting, and is a fundamental problem with the way things are being done right now. Technology does not inherently solve the problems of human coexistence and interaction. My thought on this is that while we should continue technological development, we should give up the idea that making things materially better than they are now will solve the problems, and instead concentrate on understanding our individual and collective psychologies while attempting to reduce the gross material inequalities that currently exist globally. I think we can back off on much of the tech development, especially at the consumer level, because that energy would do better being expended elsewhere.

"I'd put it about on par with belief in life-after-death as reward for self-applied constraints on (and or spiritual concession of and request for redemption from) mortal behavior on earth as a practical guide to short-term actions, I guess."

Yes. From what little I've read, Nietzsche would likely describe it as nihilist and just another excuse to not deal with the real problems as they are presented to us. "Look, there's a glorious future Singularity ahead, yay! Everything will be solved!!" In what way is that different from End Times Christanity, exactly? That's why I think it's childish.

"I think people should just be nice to each other on general principle."

Now why, why, is that not a reasonable place from which to start and form a set of morals, I wonder? Is it just too simple? Too crazy?
posted by zoogleplex at 1:23 PM on November 30, 2006

I'm pleased that you, though not pyramid_termite, seem to realize that the relevant kinds of awareness, vigilance, and education are not matters of individual resolve.

i always thought that was a virtue, but ...

That is indeed the fundamental dogma of liberalism, and you pride yourself on being able to repeat it chapter and verse from your catechism. Too bad the dogma is wrong.

prove it, then

Too bad the dogma is wrong. It is not true that "no matter what, they start from an assumption about something".

proof please ... how does what you believe not start with an assumption?

There actually is such a thing as human nature


and you define it as you please without regard to the observations of others

and it's not infinitely malleable, and conflict is not just a matter of different assumptions.

i never said it was infintitely malleable ... nor have i said that conflict was JUST a matter of different assumptions

your problem is that you're utterly incapable of confronting a nuanced view without twisting it into something simplistic to argue against ... your straw man tactics are getting tiresome

And I can make that point without having to assume that the Catholic tradition is "the Truth" -- I need only claim something that can be demonstrated, that the Catholic tradition is rationally superior to the tradition of liberalism.

which overlooks your assumption that the best tradition is that which is rationally superior ... whatever THAT means

it also pretty much is saying that it doesn't matter WHAT a tradition is based upon, whether it's right or wrong or unprovable, as long as it's rationally superior

it also ignores some rather irrational behavior on the part of those who supposedly are carrying on a "rationally superior" tradition ...

but this is the curse of today's world for the traditionalist ... that they will squirm and squirm, get into rivers of denial and tons of evasion to block out one thing ... that there are alternatives to what they believe and think and those alternatives are NOT going away

what can i say? ... they don't call it the catholic reason, they call it the catholic faith

Rational superiority does not guarantee truth, in ethical matters any more than in scientific ones.

in which case we award you a little gold star for rational superiority and move on to something more likely to discover truth ...

(ps ... some scientists and atheists would argue that their system of thought is rationally superior to yours ... there's a thread dealing with "why are atheists so angry?" on the front page where you could find people more than willing to argue this for you, if you're interesting in hearing that argument)

how well do you liberals know the Catholic tradition?

which one? ... (i won't pretend i'm well read in the catholic tradition but i should think being raised in would count for something ... shocking, isn't it? ... liberals who were raised catholic ...)

it's not necessarily your job to refute the Catholic tradition, but isn't it somebody's?

all i can say is that after looking over the history of the church and adding that to my own contemporary observations, i could no longer believe that the catholic church (or any other church) has a monopoly, or a reliable communication with god

i don't claim that as a refutation, it's my belief ... and having that belief means that i had no place in your tradition
posted by pyramid termite at 2:00 PM on November 30, 2006

cortex: "Hmmm. And as part of the deal we get to have world wars and scores of new ways to annihilate all life on earth. I'm missing how this is an argument in support of modern nation-states. It's a bit of a clusterfuck, isn't it?"

Your brio would be more appropriate if we were talking about modern nation-states having knocked over a few potted plants or broken some china. We're talking about things like Hiroshima and the Holocaust.

"Holy shit, I have co-religionists? Can you go into detail?"

If you don't recognize Kurzweil as a religious writer, I'm not sure what to say.

"The idea being that, eventually, we reach a degree of mastery over our bodies and our world at which things rapidly improve because they can."

This is an important point. The transformation, at the origin of modernity, of knowledge into mastery drives many if not most of the developments I've been complaining about.

"By that reasonaing, and with the assumption improving our technology is the only way we could hope to achieve such results, then any system that manages to allow us to steadily and rapidly improves technology without wiping us out outright would have to be considered optimal."

That is as evil a doctrine as I have ever heard advocated. Sadly I have heard many people advocate it.

zoogleplex: "You mean this Nietzsche?"

There are as many different Nietzsches as there are (interestingly different) readers of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Given that, the fact that people read summaries of Nietzsche, in which they get someone else's take on Nietzsche, would, I think, have amused him.

"Do you agree with him that the Christian tradition you rely on is inherently nihilistic and in denial of material reality?"

Well, Nietzsche doesn't think anything is inherently anything else, so the characterization is a bit off. How about this: Nietzsche has devastating critiques of any Christian who settles for anything short of authentic holiness, and there are always plenty of those.

"I read very fast, but not fast enough to devour and process Nietzsche before Saturday."

My advice is not to try to devour Nietzsche. He says that his writing is meant to be like diving deep into ice water; you can't stay under for long, but while you are there you can see things that you'd never see otherwise. Meditating on a few of his aphorisms a day is usually a lot more profitable than reading everything straight through. (The same thing is true with Holy Scripture.)

"I think that awareness, vigilance and education are, given our current culture, most definitely matters of individual resolve!"

I'm sorry to hear that.

"Of course, the requirement of our present culture that each individual take responsibility for their personal development and societal integration may be counter to actual human nature; there's certainly some evidence for that, I think."

So we may agree after all! We live in a culture in which everything must depend upon the individual decision to resist consumerism, but this reliance upon individual initiative is counter to human nature.

"Submitting your will to a Daddy God and his anointed administrative authoritarian hierarchy - whether you do it without thinking or after years of study and examination - allows you to pretend to have accomplished something impressive while at the same time avoiding having to confront the radical challenges posed to your most fundamental assumptions."

You may not remember it, but I said earlier that I am a methodological fallibilist. I am required to confront challenges posed to my most fundamental assumptions, no matter how radical; if I don't then by my own lights I'm failing to be reasonable. That is why I read Nietzche; he is the most vigorous critic of Christianity. If I were doing what you say I do, I'd waste my time feeling superior to Dawkins and his ilk.

"The god I believe in is my father, but he's not my daddy."

Do you not follow Jesus in calling God "abba," which is often translated as "daddy"?

"It is not enough for us to throw up our hands and declare that war is a constant and is inevitable, so we might as well just give up and let it happen at some hypothetically "lower" level. Violent conflict must be resisted as much as we possibly can resist it."

I agree. But I think it is better not to allow violence to get past that lower level. Sometimes I come across as too jaded when I say that there has always been war and will always be war. That's true, of course, but we still need to be peacemakers.

"Jesus would say that we are all brothers. I agree with him. Thousands of little squabbling splinter groups is not brotherhood."

I agree. But Wal-Mart is not brotherhood either, and Wal-Mart is what comes of insisting that the modern nation-state is the appropriate level for coordinating human activity. I'd rather see small communities working toward friendly relations between their neighbors.

"some of the "righteous, high quality" people suddenly lose their "community spirit," and move away out of fear (of various kinds), thus both dispiriting their neighbors and opening a vacuum for more hooligans, which starts the process rolling downhill."

We have a significant amount of that going on right now. It pisses me off when people I know move away because of the "better schools" where they are moving -- by which they mean precisely "whiter".

"Alternatively, the community comes together as a whole to deal with the hooligans and show them where the limits of community-acceptable behavior lie, and the hooligans either leave or start behaving. One is a strong community, the other just appeared strong until its lack of actual community was exposed."

Yep.

"If a community of hundreds or thousands can't handle a few ruffians showing up, it's not much of a community, IMO."

True.

"Isn't it a bit nihilistic to assume that you cannot successfully oppose the paid minions of a faceless corporation?"

You caught me. I fall too easily into being overly pessimistic. I do think we're going to be able to continue voting down these ballot initiatives, at least for the next several years. The people who live in the neighborhoods most at risk are pretty adamantly against changing the restrictions, and the people in the north part of town, where support for alcohol sales is strong, mostly are transient corporate types who live in expensive apartments and don't typically care enough about local politics to bother voting. So we'll probably be able to keep voting it down.

"I realize you're fighting them via your votes, but wouldn't fostering a truly strong community, with people resolved to disallow any behavior or intrusion that could be destabilizing, even in the face of it being established right in front of them within the physical bounds of the community, because they are educated as to the effects and dedicated to preserving their current (presumably comfortable) living conditions, be a much better weapon against them?"

You seem to think that a truly strong community wouldn't need laws to support them. I think that's misguided. Cities near us changed the alcohol laws with good intentions and believing they wouldn't have problems because of it. It's just not that easy. Laws alone cannot form a good community, but a good community needs good laws.

To give you a sense of what a big deal this issue is, every single elected official in our city opposes changing the alcohol laws. (Local politicos have robust disagreements on nearly all other issues, but this is one they all see the same way.) This is a straightforward example of us being assaulted by money from outside interests like Wal-Mart and 7-11 who hope to trick transients into voting for it without thinking about how it will change the city. And it pisses me off that they keep doing it every couple of years.

"the difference between a monolithic Daddy State and thousands of splinter Daddy Communities may not be as important as you think."

I'm not advocating Daddy communities. One of the great lessons that the Church has learned from modernity is the appropriateness of what Pope Benedict keeps calling a healthy "secularism". Political communities can address substantive questions about which reasonable people can disagree, but they also have to recognize legitimate pluralism. (And, to ward off possible misunderstanding, no I don't mean that pluralism is legitimate only so long as it is in agreement with the Catholic tradition.)

"Nietzsche would likely describe it as nihilist and just another excuse to not deal with the real problems as they are presented to us. "Look, there's a glorious future Singularity ahead, yay! Everything will be solved!!" In what way is that different from End Times Christanity, exactly? That's why I think it's childish."

Amen.

""I think people should just be nice to each other on general principle." Now why, why, is that not a reasonable place from which to start and form a set of morals, I wonder? Is it just too simple? Too crazy?"

This is a really important point: The general principle that people should be "nice" leads to disaster. The Nazis euthanized the weak and unlovely because the Nazis were trying to be nice. "Nice" does not cut it as a basis for creating a sustainable shared way of life. Unless there is a serious conversation ongoing about the nature of benefits and harms, something about which people radically disagree, "niceness" is a mask for the worst sorts of crimes against the weakest and most vulnerable. I asked you earlier about how your views about the weakest among us affected your views on abortion and infanticide. You didn't respond.

pyramid termite: "you're utterly incapable of confronting a nuanced view without twisting it into something simplistic to argue against"

Believe it or not, I've spent much time and effort addressing nuanced views in nuanced ways. My failure to do so here has nothing to do with my being "utterly incapable" of doing so, and everything to do with the "sound-bite" nature of the forum we are in (and perhaps also the medium). If this thread ends with you thinking you have seriously engaged in conversation a representative of the Catholic tradition, I will have utterly failed. This is not the place for it.

"which overlooks your assumption that the best tradition is that which is rationally superior ... whatever THAT means"

Huh?

"they will squirm and squirm, get into rivers of denial and tons of evasion to block out one thing ... that there are alternatives to what they believe and think and those alternatives are NOT going away"

But that's precisely what I am eager to affirm, not deny.

"Rational superiority does not guarantee truth, in ethical matters any more than in scientific ones. in which case we award you a little gold star for rational superiority and move on to something more likely to discover truth ...:

I'm guessing you don't read a lot of philosophy of science.

"shocking, isn't it? ... liberals who were raised catholic ..."

Given the pathetic state of catechesis in the American church? Not shocking at all.

"after looking over the history of the church and adding that to my own contemporary observations, i could no longer believe that the catholic church (or any other church) has a monopoly, or a reliable communication with god [...] and having that belief means that i had no place in your tradition"

Given that the Catholic Church doesn't claim either of those things, my hypothesis that bad catechesis is to blame would seem to be confirmed.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:16 PM on November 30, 2006

I'm guessing you don't read a lot of philosophy of science.

oh, i'm familiar with it enough to know that they're pretty big on the rational superiority thing, too ... in fact, people like sam harris and richard dawkins would say that they're rationally superior to your tradition

in fact, they would say that, you or i are idiots for believing what we believe

Given that the Catholic Church doesn't claim either of those things

the church claims an authority that i simply don't see ... and teaches some doctrine that i can't find justifiable

i could say the same for a lot of institutions ...

i think you're too eccentric to be considered a representative of any tradition ... and i'm not interested in representing one myself, which is why i've objected to being made a "liberal theorist"

seems like i should have a better response than this, but i'm not at 100% today ... vicodin and surgery recovery will do that, you know ...

in any case, you place too much on liberalism ... many of the ills you blame on it ... (hiroshima? ... the mongols did worse than that with swords and horses) ... were around long before liberalism was
posted by pyramid termite at 7:22 PM on November 30, 2006

ps ... at no point did you even attempt to refute my "liberal dogma" in any of your reply ... if you can't provide the proof i asked for above, admit it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:26 PM on November 30, 2006

oh and -

"which overlooks your assumption that the best tradition is that which is rationally superior ... whatever THAT means"

Huh?

perhaps you should find a zen buddhist and ask him if your "rational superiority" of tradition means anything to him ... it probably doesn't
posted by pyramid termite at 7:31 PM on November 30, 2006

"Holy shit, I have co-religionists? Can you go into detail?"

If you don't recognize Kurzweil as a religious writer, I'm not sure what to say.

I don't recognize Kurzweil as a co-religionist. I state pretty explicitly that I don't worship the Singularity—I'm merely discussing it.

That is as evil a doctrine as I have ever heard advocated. Sadly I have heard many people advocate it.

I'm not particularly arguing otherwise. On the other hand, someone who believed that that end was the true calling of humanity might find rejections of the means to be evil as well. Big picture theories are fun that way.
posted by cortex at 9:49 PM on November 30, 2006

[cortex sez] "I think people should just be nice to each other on general principle." [pyramid termite sez] Now why, why, is that not a reasonable place from which to start and form a set of morals, I wonder? Is it just too simple? Too crazy?

[peeping_Thomist sez] This is a really important point: The general principle that people should be "nice" leads to disaster. The Nazis euthanized the weak and unlovely because the Nazis were trying to be nice. "Nice" does not cut it as a basis for creating a sustainable shared way of life. Unless there is a serious conversation ongoing about the nature of benefits and harms, something about which people radically disagree, "niceness" is a mask for the worst sorts of crimes against the weakest and most vulnerable.

I missed some of the connective tissue between niceness's inability to support a system of morals sufficient to enable rationally ethical behavior—which is probably accurate enough as an argument, since "niceness" is a pretty, vague, cheerful sort of concept and can be stretched to accommodate a lot of behavior a lot of people are going to say isn't nice—but to stretch its insufficiency so far that it covers Nazi justifications for action? that's just wacky, man. How does "niceness" in any recognizable form become identified with Nazi political philosophy? They were trying to improve humanity by culling its weakest specimens, and so they were being nice? Something along those lines? I don't buy it. That's not a good faith reading of the term "nice" at all, and I might, were I a fool, push its oddity into a place where I could call it perverse. I'm not that much of a fool, though, so I'll just say it's damned weird, p_T. Nice Nazis. Huh.
posted by cgc373 at 11:50 PM on November 30, 2006

"My advice is not to try to devour Nietzsche. He says that his writing is meant to be like diving deep into ice water; you can't stay under for long, but while you are there you can see things that you'd never see otherwise. Meditating on a few of his aphorisms a day is usually a lot more profitable than reading everything straight through."

I'll take that advice, thanks. I'll likely try to read up on his precursors and freshen up on ones I'm familiar with before tackling him.

"So we may agree after all! We live in a culture in which everything must depend upon the individual decision to resist consumerism, but this reliance upon individual initiative is counter to human nature."

It may be counter to human nature; I'm not convinced it's totally alien to our nature. Besides that, humans don't really act entirely as individuals except in extreme cases, we're all inextricably bound to some kind of group structure. The difficulty, in the face of corporate entities that behave like viruses, is to make resistance to their predations into a desirable group attribute, so that individuals get reinforcement in their own personal resistance. It's not easy, as your example re Wal-Mart etc. attempting to expand their sales base against your community's will, but it's not impossible.

"You seem to think that a truly strong community wouldn't need laws to support them. I think that's misguided.... Laws alone cannot form a good community, but a good community needs good laws."

Oh no, of course communities need laws. However, a community should also have the ability, should some inimical external influence succeed in somehow subverting its laws, to keep to its values even in the face of that. If even after they weasel in, you shun them, they will eventually have to leave because you've denied them their expected profit, by proving their low opinion of you was wrong.

"But Wal-Mart is not brotherhood either, and Wal-Mart is what comes of insisting that the modern nation-state is the appropriate level for coordinating human activity."

Well, wait; our modern nation-state needn't enable a corporate entity to act this way. The United States needn't have passed laws or made legal decisions that give corporations a legal status equal to citizens, and the ability to wield their massive resources against the public well-being in pursuit of profit. Other Western nations are far more restrictive to corporations, though perhaps all should be more so.

"I'd rather see small communities working toward friendly relations between their neighbors."

I think we all would, and nothing says we can't do that even within the bounds of a nation-state. It has a lot to do with how much power the small communities delegate upwards. Right now, we delegate far too much to the federal level, IMO. I think it's an outgrowth of failure of individuals to take personal responsibility for their own actions and the well-being of their local communities - which also contributes to the formation of bureaucratic hierarchies. Let "the government" do it! Americans forget that they are the government and have given up responsibility for the nation's actions... because it's easier.

And that of course contributed to the weighting of laws and structure in favor of capitalist corporations. Some arbitrary legal decisions were made, or perhaps were coerced by corporate power, and most people weren't paying attention when it happened.

Still, I don't think that allowing corporate predation is an inevitable consequence of liberalism. Capitalism, perhaps, but is capitalism an inevitable consequence of liberalism? It's unfortunate that it's worked out this way, but even so, it's not impossible to fight these organizations. All the environmental legislation, while contentious and a constant battle, has been pretty successful in most cases, at least within the Western nations... of course, the corporations relocate their pollution elsewhere, but still, there's a fight going. There are many organizations fighting various aspects of corporate evil, and while it's an uphill battle, it's not a hopeless one.

I hope your town is able to fight off Wal-Mart. However, I think Wal-Mart is soon going to have a lot of problems, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.

"We have a significant amount of that going on right now. It pisses me off when people I know move away because of the "better schools" where they are moving -- by which they mean precisely "whiter"."

Ugh. That really sucks.

"This is a really important point: The general principle that people should be "nice" leads to disaster. The Nazis euthanized the weak and unlovely because the Nazis were trying to be nice."

Whoa, whoa! They were only lying to themselves and everyone else about trying to be nice! I don't know anyone who thinks killing the weak or unlovely is nice; that's a horrible, anti-human justification for murder. The people who ordered that were just straight up psychopaths - ultra-extreme narcissists! - who couldn't see other people as human beings. The people who carried it out may have been just regular people, swept up in the psychopathic manipulation group-think.

"Unless there is a serious conversation ongoing about the nature of benefits and harms, something about which people radically disagree, "niceness" is a mask for the worst sorts of crimes against the weakest and most vulnerable."

Quite so. But don't we have a working consensus about what's harmful or not coded into our basic laws, which draw heavily on Western Christian thought and less so on other philosophies? Y'know, murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud, abuse, etc.? These aren't uniform worldwide, and they're not perfect, but considering these prohibitions apart from the punishments, they're fairly universal in the West - and we should acknowledge the role of the Catholic Church in that.

Of course these are harms against individuals, while harms against larger groups are less easy to define. How do we get the serious conversation going? Is it already happening anywhere?

"Political communities can address substantive questions about which reasonable people can disagree, but they also have to recognize legitimate pluralism."

Isn't that the point of preserving minority rights even under majority rule? Not saying we do it perfectly, but isn't that the idea?

I mean, why don't we allow Mormons to be polygamous? I think if a guy thinks he can afford multiple wives and operate a family that way successfully, why not let him go for it?

"I asked you earlier about how your views about the weakest among us affected your views on abortion and infanticide. You didn't respond."

Oh, okay. I believe infanticide is murder, without qualification. I believe it's especially heinous when it's done deliberately for reasons like "we wanted a boy" or "we don't want to raise a Down syndrome child."

Abortion is a much more difficult matter for me. I don't think it's a good idea as a method of birth control or population control. However, if we are to give women freedom and control over their lives equal to men's, as a man I don't feel like I have the right to force a woman to carry and bear a child she doesn't want - even if the child happens to be mine. It's an uncomfortable place to be, but given the present circumstances I think allowing the choice is necessary. Ideally, I'd like to see there be no unwanted pregnancies; alternatively I'd like to see a social structure where a woman can have a child yet still retain freedom to control her life, a "village" to help raise her child, as it were, as exists in some of the Scandinavian countries, and thus is apparently possible within a liberal framework.

I think in order to give women equal rights, we have to allow them to take responsibility for this decision on themselves. Some will be able to reconcile it with themselves, others will not. Women in a situation where they are pregnant with an unwanted child deserve our support and assistance, no matter what their decision is, IMO. Especially, women should not be forced to bear a child as "punishment" for what some think is immoral sexual behavior, as it seems many of the anti-abortionists really wish.

I reject any black-and-white treatment of this issue, because it's much more complicated than that.

We covered a lot of that in the contraception thread, anyway, and I don't want it to affect this conversation, I'm just making it as plain as I can because you asked. I hope it helps illuminate my position on how we should all take care of each other. Perhaps the structure of the "village" raising the child is more in line with that. I think we have a responsibility to care for the weak and infirm, whether physically or mentally so. I look at the horror we're allowing to happen in Africa with utter incomprehension and frustration. The carnage there is a complete failure of the rest of humanity to care. The fact that the only solutions offered to us involve either direct military intervention or sending money to some organization that may or may not be legitimate is just feeble and insulting.

I think I can sum a lot of my feeling on what's going on in our world today by saying I think we're doing a lot of things very poorly, but I'm willing to forgive us our failures as long as we keep working to do better. I'm not so pessimistic about humanity. I think we get a little better each time we screw up, and that it's a loooong growing process. I'm glad we managed to scare the hell out of ourselves with the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I really hope we never cross that line again.


However, once again I find it hopeful to note that nuclear weapons are the only weapon we've ever created that we only used once (I count the two attacks as one event), and have never used again.
posted by zoogleplex at 12:14 AM on December 1, 2006

...pops his head back into the conversation to take small issue with this:

However, once again I find it hopeful to note that nuclear weapons are the only weapon we've ever created that we only used once (I count the two attacks as one event)

When the bombing of Nagasaki 3 days after Hiroshima, after the Japanese had already witnessed the power of the first bomb, is thought by many to have been completely unnecessary.

Also, I wanted this thread to show up in My Comments again so I could watch any last-minute posting rush for the record if it occurs.
posted by SBMike at 10:49 AM on December 1, 2006

SBMike, you done right. In both #9622 and #1142, concerted efforts to post more and more, whether frivolous or "focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand," were acceptable Meta-behavior. Often those efforts were coordinated by individual cheerleaders, many of whom are no longer active around here, and it falls to us to take up their challenge.

If we have to talk about Nazis and slavery, I say we do it!

If we have to talk about mushrooms, I say we do it!

If we have to talk about what we talk about when we talk about MetaFilter or Raymond Chandler (deliberate mistake?), I say we do it!

I'll add a "So say we all" for the nerds and the freaks!
posted by cgc373 at 11:04 AM on December 1, 2006

If we have to talk about mushrooms, I say we do it!

I had some good mushrooms the other weekend. Walked through the forest and along the beach. Good fun.
posted by SBMike at 11:17 AM on December 1, 2006

If the mushroom thread were linked from this thread, I worry MeFi's Blue Power would suck everybody into its vortex and shatter our illusions and make us silly. I won't do it!
posted by cgc373 at 11:27 AM on December 1, 2006

suck everybody into its vortex

more like cortex AM I RITE
posted by cortex at 11:37 AM on December 1, 2006

more like cortex AM I RITE

ror u r rite
posted by Stynxno at 11:40 AM on December 1, 2006

Hi. I like cheese. Do you like cheese?
posted by scrump at 11:41 AM on December 1, 2006

OH GOD WE'LL NEER MAKE IT
posted by cortex at 11:41 AM on December 1, 2006

However, once again I find it hopeful to note that nuclear weapons are the only weapon we've ever created that we only used once (I count the two attacks as one event), and have never used again.

So far. There also hasn't been a war of the magnitude of ww2 since it's use either. The fact that we haven't used them isn't necessarily the right measurement to use. We are now just more tactally aware of the effects that such a use would cause on a) world wide public relations b) political situations at home c) health risks to ourselves, etc etc. The metric to use a bomb changed and the will to fill that metric has changed as well. But I doubt that, if desired, the US wouldn't use them again.
posted by Stynxno at 11:44 AM on December 1, 2006

Why not?
posted by IronLizard at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2006

Hi. I like cheese. Do you like cheese?

Extra sharp please.
posted by Stynxno at 11:46 AM on December 1, 2006

Errrrrr, that was re: cortex
posted by IronLizard at 11:47 AM on December 1, 2006

Why not?

were you speaking to me?
posted by Stynxno at 11:47 AM on December 1, 2006

Pepperjackoff
posted by IronLizard at 11:48 AM on December 1, 2006

Errrrrr, that was re: cortex

oh. never mind.
posted by Stynxno at 11:48 AM on December 1, 2006

No, I was speaking to cortex. The cheese was a general comment
posted by IronLizard at 11:49 AM on December 1, 2006

Whoa. I was gonna say, to cortex, of his C-V, that now he was playing with QWERTY. But now I gotta consider my cheese and nuke opinions. Plus the Nice Nazis.
posted by cgc373 at 11:50 AM on December 1, 2006

There also hasn't been a war of the magnitude of ww2 since it's use either.

Your favorite war sucks.
posted by scrump at 11:50 AM on December 1, 2006

posted by IronLizard at 11:52 AM on December 1, 2006

ummmm, the blank was supposed to be a turd.

I think ww2 is great, I don;t know what you're talking about
posted by IronLizard at 11:54 AM on December 1, 2006

Hey, this ted haggard, is he related to merle haggard?
posted by IronLizard at 11:55 AM on December 1, 2006

OH GOD WE'LL NEER MAKE IT

I, for one, am starting to doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
posted by scrump at 11:55 AM on December 1, 2006

I can't decide if I should be "taking credit" or "admitting culpability" for rallying the troops, at this point.
posted by cortex at 11:59 AM on December 1, 2006

well, i bet his throat is all haggard, if you know what i mean
posted by Stynxno at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2006

And this used to be such a nice thread, until scrump attacked cortex's ardor.
posted by cgc373 at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2006

like some twisted blue frankenstein?
posted by IronLizard at 12:00 PM on December 1, 2006

TO WAARRRRRRRRRRRRR
posted by Stynxno at 12:02 PM on December 1, 2006

hey, does haggard have a myspace? can i send him a friend request?
posted by Stynxno at 12:04 PM on December 1, 2006

who is this strange mixture of letters that has swept into the dying throes of this thread?
posted by IronLizard at 12:04 PM on December 1, 2006

someone always has to put their bucket of cocks into the potatoes
posted by IronLizard at 12:05 PM on December 1, 2006

stynxno said: oh you bitch
posted by IronLizard at 12:07 PM on December 1, 2006

someone cut this thread's left arm off.
posted by Stynxno at 12:08 PM on December 1, 2006

OOOOHHHHHH. you went there.
posted by Stynxno at 12:09 PM on December 1, 2006

Look, all I'm going to say is that if this is the kind of puerile jackassery for which MetaFilter wants to be known, ROCK ON, TINY ELVIS

\m/
posted by scrump at 12:10 PM on December 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

metafilter: puerile jackassery
posted by IronLizard at 12:12 PM on December 1, 2006

Anyone wanting to savor the memories of this thread should go buy a t-shirt with the 56002 word cloud.
posted by SBMike at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2006

Now it's almost anticlimactic. Foretold days ago, we're gonna make mock chicken toast out of #9622. We're gonna break a legend. And we're gonna do it with our hands.
posted by cgc373 at 12:14 PM on December 1, 2006

Funny how bardic is on that word cloud
posted by IronLizard at 12:19 PM on December 1, 2006

gonna do it with our hands.

What else are you doing with those hands? Pervert.
posted by IronLizard at 12:20 PM on December 1, 2006

not my hands. their too delicate and need moisturizing.

damnit! my cuticles are screwed up.
posted by Stynxno at 12:20 PM on December 1, 2006

they're***
posted by Stynxno at 12:22 PM on December 1, 2006

IronLizard is Ceiling Cat?
posted by cgc373 at 12:25 PM on December 1, 2006

Anyone seen the red-neck bear sex video?
posted by IronLizard at 12:26 PM on December 1, 2006

Ceiling lizard. Can't abide by cats.
posted by IronLizard at 12:27 PM on December 1, 2006

red-neck dead bear sex video, fyi.
posted by Stynxno at 12:30 PM on December 1, 2006

I did not have relations with that dead bear.
posted by scrump at 12:32 PM on December 1, 2006

wait. are you saying that haggard had gay sex on a dead bear?
posted by Stynxno at 12:33 PM on December 1, 2006

INTERNET redneck dead bear sex video.
posted by scrump at 12:34 PM on December 1, 2006

I did not have relations with that dead bear.

scrump did it.
posted by Stynxno at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2006

It's not a bear, it's a beer ape.
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on December 1, 2006

ape more like cape AMIRITE
posted by Stynxno at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2006

And I would have gotten away with it if you meddling kids hadn't put it on YouTube.
posted by scrump at 12:44 PM on December 1, 2006

WE DID IT.
posted by Stynxno at 12:51 PM on December 1, 2006

Dammit, this is cheap crap to try to beat the record. I'm against that. Stick to the topics if you still can...
posted by zoogleplex at 12:52 PM on December 1, 2006

Well, now what?
posted by IronLizard at 12:52 PM on December 1, 2006

CUE HAPPY SLIDING SANTA
posted by Stynxno at 12:53 PM on December 1, 2006

Dammit, this is cheap crap to try to beat the record. I'm against that. Stick to the topics if you still can...

Sure: Lying Homo Evangelicals Suck.

Topic stuck to.
posted by IronLizard at 12:55 PM on December 1, 2006

Okay, zoogleplex, fine:

Unintentionally hilarious headline of the day.
posted by scrump at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2006

come on, we metioned haggard a few times.

and this really stopped being about haggard like 1000 comments ago. it became more about people's views on christianity which is fine but we've had that thread every two weeks for years. our train wrecking of it isn't much different.
posted by Stynxno at 12:56 PM on December 1, 2006

and my proof is look at the shirt word balloon. Bardic and Peeping Thomist are some of the primary words on that page.

This thread evolved into being about those two, not about Haggard.
posted by Stynxno at 12:58 PM on December 1, 2006

And now? It's a thread about evangelicals who have sex on freshly killed bears. See? Right along the same lines.
posted by IronLizard at 1:01 PM on December 1, 2006

Someone should send Ted a cockbucket or fruit basket or something for Christmas.
posted by IronLizard at 1:03 PM on December 1, 2006

Actually, the thread devolved into concepts about invidual responsibility, the creation of governments, corporations, walmart, and sex on dead bears.

I can see how all of that is related.
posted by Stynxno at 1:07 PM on December 1, 2006

Well, zoogleplex has a fair point, in that he's been engaged in a conversation with peeping_Thomist for a while now, and they've been more or less on-topic throughout. Still, though, I gotta say, it's okay to play, too, and snark and derails come with this territory. If there were a good way to bracket our hooligan's antics, I'd support it, but there isn't any I know of, so we're gonna have to do what we do everywhere else on the site, and skip what we will skip, and say what we will say, and let administrators hope us where they may, etc. etc., world without end, amen.
posted by cgc373 at 1:07 PM on December 1, 2006

Haggard and Harried in America

"And of course Pastor Ted moved in the power circles of Conservative Evangelical Christianity, rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful of Colorado and the nation. He instructed those corrupted by liberalism and the permissive culture, and tried to help them find their way home, even as he was having serious navigation problems of his own.

‘Pastor Ted's’ gay bashing pictured in the documentary ‘Jesus Camp’ (now available on U Tube) sent members of his young audience into delirium. As with so many of the moral saviors of our world he railed against that which he secretly practiced, leaving the gullible who followed him spinning in the pews at the beautifully appointed New Life Church and the World Prayer Center. In another life Ted Haggard might have been quite successful as a carnival barker or peddling life insurance, but in modern America he followed a career path of the many who discovered the magic in the latest forms of what Jonathan Edwards once called, ‘smiling Christianity.’

Whether Ted Haggard will be born again, yet one more time, remains to be seen. What we do know is that there are many out there waiting to fill the void left by yet another stained savior of our world. It is a most American of stories replicating itself over and over again."

posted by ericb at 1:16 PM on December 1, 2006

Please explain to me why having humans grouped into hundreds (or thousands) of squabbling groups is inferior to having them collected into modern nation-states.

One possible argument: with the scaling up of nations comes the scaling up of both motivation to achieve and capacity to accomplish distinguishing advantages in science, technology, art, etc. The larger the nation, the greater the leverage and the greater the potential national pride and profit in fielding some line of growth or inquiry in art and science. These achievements may act on the short term in the private interest of the nation responsible and its people and allies and etc, but in the long run humanity is bettered as a whole.

I agree with cortex here and want to expand on his thought. The one thing that nation states offer is resources and eases the way to communicate and dialogue with members inside the same state. An individual can say 'I am a member of this' and is (in theory) able to communicate to another person in that same grouping and have a basis to start building a relationship with said person. This relationship offers an easier way to share resources. With the shared resouces, an individual or a group of individuals may for a collective to further some goal. If this goal benefits humanity (such as a cure for cancer), then the shared resources of a nature state will be larger than the shared resources in a smaller group. Can the resources among the smaller groups be shared among each groups? Yes. But would the work necessary to create the relationships with each group to make the setup work be as easy as in a nation state? I would say, in general, no.

It's an extension of the pack mentality. The more numbers, the safer an individual is and the easier it is for the group to share resources to benefit all. Does this usually happen? Nope and that's usually due to invidual faults such as greed, lust for power, control, etc. Do small groups disfuse these faults? To some extend but not to as large of an extend as some people would wish us to believe.
posted by Stynxno at 1:17 PM on December 1, 2006

*snif* I love you guys.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:18 PM on December 1, 2006

Well, zoogleplex has a fair point, in that he's been engaged in a conversation with peeping_Thomist for a while now, and they've been more or less on-topic throughout. Still, though, I gotta say, it's okay to play, too, and snark and derails come with this territory. If there were a good way to bracket our hooligan's antics, I'd support it, but there isn't any I know of, so we're gonna have to do what we do everywhere else on the site, and skip what we will skip, and say what we will say, and let administrators hope us where they may, etc. etc., world without end, amen.

Oh, he has a valid point - but, like the old metafilter phrase, if you don't posts, create your own. The conversation hand not ended even though his post was the last 'serious' one. There were still plenty of things that could be mentioned and disgussed.
posted by Stynxno at 1:20 PM on December 1, 2006

Ted Haggard and the Church of the Down Low.

Shelving Ted Haggard's marital advice.
posted by ericb at 1:21 PM on December 1, 2006

and by disgussed, i mean discussed. oi.
posted by Stynxno at 1:22 PM on December 1, 2006

True 'nuff, Stynxno, on the DIY tip.

But I want to point out that you're agreeing with cortex's argument about potential benefits of nation-states, not with cortex, who was hypothesizing, not stating his beliefs.
posted by cgc373 at 1:26 PM on December 1, 2006

those articles are really scrapping the barrel, aren't they?
posted by Stynxno at 1:27 PM on December 1, 2006

[That word cloud t-shirt is good.]
posted by cgc373 at 1:28 PM on December 1, 2006

But I want to point out that you're agreeing with cortex's argument about potential benefits of nation-states, not with cortex, who was hypothesizing, not stating his beliefs.

correct, i was agreeing with his potential belief of nation-states.

of course, in theory, this benefit works - in practice, it doesn't happen much. there has been some good examples: space exploration, the eradication of polio in the US, etc. There are some events that I perceive to be too large in scale to be properely handled by many small groups. And, in the process of trying to accomplish these large scale projects, the unifying between many small groups may lead to a nation-state or something that resembles it.
posted by Stynxno at 1:30 PM on December 1, 2006

his potential belief of nation-states

his arguement about the potential benefit of nation-states..

oi. i need to start drinking before I post.
posted by Stynxno at 1:32 PM on December 1, 2006

pyramid termite: "i think you're too eccentric to be considered a representative of any tradition"

I'm not very unusual for a contemporary American Catholic intellectual-type person. Pretty much everything I've said in this thread is the sort of thing one more or less frequently comes across when Catholic intellectuals discuss how to engage contemporary culture. That doesn't mean the sorts of views I articulated in this thread dominate in Catholic circles, but they are respectably "in the mix" of mainstream Catholic thought.

zoogleplex: "The difficulty, in the face of corporate entities that behave like viruses, is to make resistance to their predations into a desirable group attribute, so that individuals get reinforcement in their own personal resistance. It's not easy, as your example re Wal-Mart etc. attempting to expand their sales base against your community's will, but it's not impossible."

Given the conceptual resources you currently have ready to hand, I don't see how you propose to do that.

"It has a lot to do with how much power the small communities delegate upwards. Right now, we delegate far too much to the federal level, IMO. I think it's an outgrowth of failure of individuals to take personal responsibility for their own actions and the well-being of their local communities - which also contributes to the formation of bureaucratic hierarchies."

I don't think you appreciate how much individualism itself is one of the conditions making bureaucracies possible.

"I think Wal-Mart is soon going to have a lot of problems, so I wouldn't worry too much about them."

Hey, you know my views by now. I think everyone is pretty soon going to have a lot of problems!

"They were only lying to themselves and everyone else about trying to be nice! I don't know anyone who thinks killing the weak or unlovely is nice"

Sure you do: yourself. Witness:

"Abortion is a much more difficult matter for me. [blah blah blah] I don't feel like I have the right [blah blah blah] it's an uncomfortable place to be [blah blah blah] deserve our support and assistance, no matter what their decision [blah blah blah] it's much more complicated [...] we should all take care of each other [blah blah blah] I'm willing to forgive us our failures [blah blah blah] I'm glad we managed to scare the hell out of ourselves with the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I really hope we never cross that line again."

If tearing apart weak, vulnerable, defenseless human beings doesn't "cross that line," you're not drawing the line in the right place.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:46 PM on December 1, 2006

You, peeping_Thomist, are drawing a straight equivalence between an individual choosing to kill a child—and I'll go ahead and assume it's infanticide proper, where you actually dash a baby's head into rocks or drown the baby—and a bureaucratic government's decision to use nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

Am I understanding you?
posted by cgc373 at 2:03 PM on December 1, 2006

If tearing apart weak, vulnerable, defenseless human beings doesn't "cross that line," you're not drawing the line in the right place.

Oh. nicely played.

If we're going to start defining lines, lets define when a human being is considered a human being. And then lets define what legal rights a person has over their own bodies. Those are the lines to define in the abortion debate. And those lines have been shifting since the dawn of time and will shift again in the future.
posted by Stynxno at 2:04 PM on December 1, 2006

"Given the conceptual resources you currently have ready to hand, I don't see how you propose to do that."

I grant you that I don't have a solution handy, but I don't spend all day thinking about it, either. Suffice it to say that I think religious-based methods won't work. What solution do you propose, with your vaunted conceptual resources?

"If tearing apart weak, vulnerable, defenseless human beings doesn't "cross that line," you're not drawing the line in the right place."

Um, what part of "I'm uncomfortable with the idea of abortion" do you not understand? I, personally, would not have an abortion, because I think a fetus is a living thing that should live. However, the point is moot in my case, because I'm not a woman. If I were a woman, I don't know what my position would be, because being a woman is completely different from being a man.

Have you grokked that I'd rather see no unwanted pregnancies, and thus no abortions? Did you even read where I said I'd be really happy with that? And if not that, I'd be really happy with a social safety net where a woman can have a baby without losing her freedom, which really makes all babies wanted by the community, which does actually exist in some places on earth? Does the word "abortion" just send you off your nut and destroy your reading comprehension or something?

It's likely I'd tell a woman, "I think abortion is a bad idea, and so I think you should be completely sure you're going to be able to handle it," but I certainly am not going to attempt to physically or legally bar her from getting one if she decides to.

That's because I think women should be free and equal to men. You obviously do not, which is consistent with Catholic thought as far as I know. You are entirely against any non-NFP method of birth control, which puts you firmly on the "women are inferior" side.

And anyway, you and I are never, ever, ever going to agree on whether a fetus is a human being or not, so don't drag out that old saw. I'll always counter it the same way: since roughly 30% of all pregnancies, wanted or not, end in miscarriage, your God seems to agree with most of the rest of us that fetuses aren't people yet, for some reason.

If you think that I think abortions are nice, you're being willfully obtuse. I think they're sad and unnecessary, get it? Don't be dense.

"I don't think you appreciate how much individualism itself is one of the conditions making bureaucracies possible."

So, there are no bureaucracies under systems where individualism is denied?

I think you aren't appreciating the fact that the difference between having 750 million people total on the planet (as in 1750, far fewer in the 15th century) and having 6.6 billion people on the planet makes bureaucracies inevitable, individualism or not. The Chinese have had a highly non-individualistic society for more than 3,000 years, and they've always had bureaucracies - they even ascribe one to their ancient gods!

ericb: I like your recent Haggard posts. I think the worst thing about this is his lying to his wife and family. I could care less if he has sex with men and does meth, as long as he's up front about it. He put his wife's life and family's welfare at risk with drug use and potential for contracting AIDS, and that's just inexcusable.

Too bad he hates himself too much to just be himself and be happy with it.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:30 PM on December 1, 2006

If tearing apart weak, vulnerable, defenseless human beings doesn't "cross that line," you're not drawing the line in the right place.

but of course, if we outlaw it, then we're harnessing the violence of the state against people and creating more members of the criminal underclass etc etc etc ...

I'm not very unusual for a contemporary American Catholic intellectual-type person.

*shrugs*

my judgement of your eccentricity is not just based on comparing you to others, you know ... but, that's neither here or there

you are rather pessimistic ...

oh and everyone else? ... it's so impressive that you've got the almighty post count up to number one

just remember who was doing the heavy lifting, mmmmkay?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:24 PM on December 1, 2006

*bows before pyramid termite & bardic & peeping_Thomist & zoogleplex*
posted by cgc373 at 3:30 PM on December 1, 2006

*considers glaring at konolia, but shrugs, instead*

*waves*
posted by cgc373 at 3:32 PM on December 1, 2006

The word cloud only works if you replace "peeping" with "peeping_Thomist", and then remove "Thomist" altogether.

Plus, if I wanted to wear it in public, I'd have to remove "fuck".
posted by peeping_Thomist at 4:09 PM on December 1, 2006

No worries, p_T. The site lets you remove any of the terms by checking a box. I removed "PST," thinking it added too little to the information to be useful.
posted by cgc373 at 4:17 PM on December 1, 2006

Funny.

Are you going to answer me about the question of equivalence between an act of infanticide and an act of mass slaughter?
posted by cgc373 at 4:30 PM on December 1, 2006

you should have seen what we did to usenet with that
posted by pyramid termite at 4:44 PM on December 1, 2006

I really should contribute something to this historic example of the convergence of the three things you're never supposed to discuss in proper company: (1) religion, (2) politics and (3) sex. (Although I suspect whoever first coined that advice, if alive today, would add "meth" to the list. But this mammoth achievement in the advancement of civil discourse, unlike the previous "long thread" record holders here, did so without much in the way of "filler for the sake of adding more comments".

So, I should personally honor all those whose varying opinions but common belief in the rightness of themselves with a heartfelt (and Google-baiting):

THIS WILL NOT WENDELL.
posted by wendell at 5:43 PM on December 1, 2006

This will not wend at all.
posted by scheptech at 5:46 PM on December 1, 2006

So, this thread should be closed to further comments in just under 22 hours. And considering how few "comments just to add to the comment total" there seem to be (Don't ask me to read the whole thing - I've been ignoring it all month), it may be appropriate to call in "The Longboat Crew" who kept "MetaTalk 9622" and its follow-ups alive, even if they don't have img tags to work with...
posted by wendell at 5:55 PM on December 1, 2006

I feel like we had an undefeated NFL season followed by winning out the Playoffs and taking the Super Bowl, thus surpassing Shula's Miami Dolphins.

Kind of a weird feeling.

Also, I'm not sure whether to be happy or terrified that there is now unequivocal proof that I really talk too damn much...

Ah well.
posted by zoogleplex at 6:04 PM on December 1, 2006

Ted, thanks for helping tip the election to the Democrats and putting a brake on the last six years of craziness. I suggest you join the Episcopal Church they welcome gays, although they still take issue with cheating on your spouse.
posted by caddis at 6:17 PM on December 1, 2006

Heh... Patrick Swayze played the pedophile children's motivational speaker in Donnie Darko, and Haggard resembles Swayze (it's the smile) enough that I see Haggard and think Swayze. This whole thing makes me think of Patrick Swayze. ARRRGGGHHHhhh...
posted by Derive the Hamiltonian of... at 6:43 PM on December 1, 2006

t may be appropriate to call in "The Longboat Crew"

You rang?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:39 PM on December 1, 2006

There. That's better.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:40 PM on December 1, 2006

What, no Nietzsche? Kant? Sophocles? Rawls, Rorty?

No, I'm not gonna do it.

Still waiting for the stance on women's equality. :)

Going out for dinner, see y'all tomorrow.
posted by zoogleplex at 7:42 PM on December 1, 2006

Yes PT, he has a magnetic personality, yet he is still quite the hypocrite and a hate filled person. It's hard to love a hater. Christ tells us to love even those who hurt us. Well, fine, I try and most often succeed there. However, the love you have for someone this detestable is different, more like pity, and hope for their soul and redemption. I hope he learns to live with his homosexuality, learns to stop hating himself and others like him, learns forgiveness, real forgivness, and with his talents learns to preach love and the Lord to the least of us, not the rich donors he focused on in his past life. That would be some pretty amazing redemption, no?
posted by caddis at 7:51 PM on December 1, 2006

So, this thread should be closed to further comments in just under 22 hours.

See? All is well that wendells.
posted by homunculus at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2006

caddis: "he has a magnetic personality, yet he is still quite the hypocrite and a hate filled person. It's hard to love a hater."

Wow. You are so wrong. Haters are especially easy to love, because one of the things hateful people specialize in is being loveable.

You can see it in Haggard's interview out in front of his house and then the next day in his car in the driveway. He is lying both times (which is a hateful thing to do). But he is saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear. People love to be told what they want to hear, and one of the most hateful things you can do is to tell people what they want to hear when you know that it is a lie.

Haven't you ever felt yourself wanting to believe what someone was saying to you, just because you wanted to like them, and you knew that if what they were saying wasn't true the only explanation was that they were contemptuous liars? Con artists rely on the pull of that instinct. It is their bread and butter. It is so very, very easy to love a hater, even after you have conclusive evidence that that is what they are.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 8:03 PM on December 1, 2006

whatever, give him a kiss for me, but no tongue
posted by caddis at 8:21 PM on December 1, 2006

There. That's better.

what's next? typing out your rosary prayers?

so ... hmm, the verdict is that haggard's not a hypocrite, but he's a hater and a con artist? ... even though he was claiming authority as a preacher ...

ah, well, it's an old story in any event ... we've seen it before and we'll see it again ... at least when priests get caught in something tawdry, they tend to be less exhibitionist about it ...

that's the part i don't get ... doesn't anyone in this country WANT to scurry under a rock anymore when they get caught at something? ... lots of talk, lots of confession, lots of addiction talk - no shame or discretion
posted by pyramid termite at 8:33 PM on December 1, 2006

I didn't make it into the word cloud (sob!).

Also, from p_t: Plus, if I wanted to wear it in public, I'd have to remove "fuck".

What for?
posted by Robert Angelo at 8:50 PM on December 1, 2006

pyramid termite: "what's next? typing out your rosary prayers?"

Nah, I was just trying to get the word cloud to turn out right. It looks pretty good now if you delete "Thomist" and "PST", and change "peeping" to "peeping_Thomist". Plus I'd need to delete "fucking".

Anyone know how to get a high-resolution word cloud? I know it's not in their interest to make them available, but I'm not going to be buying any word cloud t-shirts or mousepads.

Speaking of the rosary, this is the second day of the novena to the immaculate conception, and I made a special point of praying for you all when I said it with my family tonight.

Robert Angelo: "Plus, if I wanted to wear it in public, I'd have to remove "fuck". What for?"

I don't swear around my kids, or really much at all.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 9:14 PM on December 1, 2006

I don't swear around my kids, or really much at all. —peeping_Thomist

Yeah, MetaFilter can draw out the coarsness like pus, all right. It's a blue suppurating wound. A canker.

We'd even have it many other ways, but this is the way we have it, and so, it's the way we use it.

MetaFilter's like a little society, that way. You take it as it is and improve it where you can. And bitch when it doesn't go your way.

[I don't think I believe anything I just wrote. I'm not sure, but I don't think so.]
posted by cgc373 at 9:34 PM on December 1, 2006

fuck you you fucking fucked fuckers.
posted by quonsar at 9:41 PM on December 1, 2006

Metafilter: Can draw out the coarseness like pus
posted by maggieb at 9:53 PM on December 1, 2006

Does anybody know whether the MetaFilter day ends at midnight PST? Meaning, is this thread over and done with in two hours? Or is the 30-day period measured in 24-hour days, so the thread will end tomorrow afternoon at 3:43 P.M. PST?
posted by cgc373 at 9:54 PM on December 1, 2006

Nevar forget
posted by klangklangston at 9:59 PM on December 1, 2006

I see the OP as "November 2, 2006 5:43 PM CST" -- and here I am at December 2, 2006, 12:24 AM CST.
posted by Robert Angelo at 10:26 PM on December 1, 2006

So there's 15 or 16 hours left in the ol' Haggard yet. We'll never reach 2000. Aw, well.

p_T, I'm still interested in your possible equivalence between a murder and a genocide, or whether I've completely misread you. zoogleplex still wants to know about your stance regarding equal rights for women and men. It's borderline bad form to bring up activity in other threads—though I'm not convinced it should be bad form—so I'm hesitant to remind you how you demanded that ludwig_van provide you a list of "logical inconsistencies" he claimed you'd committed, and kept on demanding it till the thread died.

I'm not making any claims about your position—I'm saying I don't understand what you've said, and I've stated what I think your statements meant. It sounded to me like you were saying that one person killing another person has the same bad quality (moral quality?) as a state government using weapons of mass destruction to kill a lot of people. Before I try to understand what you mean by that, I first want to know whether that's what you meant. Help a fellow out, p_T.
posted by cgc373 at 11:25 PM on December 1, 2006

MetaFilter: I'm not making any claims about your position.
posted by Duncan at 11:41 PM on December 1, 2006

Don't try to sweet-talk me, Duncan. I see right through those quotation tactics. Your agenda is plain. You just want to join the new wiki. You don't care about me. *sniff* *tears well*
posted by cgc373 at 2:00 AM on December 2, 2006

fuck you you fucking fucked fuckers.

keep your fish in your pants where they belong, quonsar
posted by pyramid termite at 4:07 AM on December 2, 2006

cgc373: "I'm still interested in your possible equivalence between a murder and a genocide,"

Since each person is, in a way, the whole intelligible cosmos, genocide is murder taken to its logical conclusion.

"zoogleplex still wants to know about your stance regarding equal rights for women and men."

I don't do rights-talk.

"I'm saying I don't understand what you've said, and I've stated what I think your statements meant. It sounded to me like you were saying that one person killing another person has the same bad quality (moral quality?) as a state government using weapons of mass destruction to kill a lot of people."

I don't use the word "moral" except in order to avoid having to explain why I don't use it. I hope I've made clear that I think there is no cognitive content to the word as contemporary people use it.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 6:06 AM on December 2, 2006

We'll never reach 2000.

But 1800 is within reach...
posted by Robert Angelo at 6:50 AM on December 2, 2006

God, it's been a month of this already?
posted by moonbird at 7:51 AM on December 2, 2006

I mean 1800 comments of this, w00t?!
posted by moonbird at 7:53 AM on December 2, 2006

It seems like just yesterday...

Well, no.

At least he and the kid of that anti-abortion Project Rescue nut can date now...
posted by klangklangston at 8:07 AM on December 2, 2006

REPENT SINNERS, THE END IS NEAR!
(six hours)
posted by caddis at 8:25 AM on December 2, 2006

Since each person is, in a way, the whole intelligible cosmos, genocide is murder taken to its logical conclusion. —peeping_Thomist

Thanks for your candor here, peeping_Thomist. It's a perfectly sensible position to equate a myriad with an individual human cosmos, if a cosmos is essentially infinite, becoming a comparison of infinities. I don't understand infinity conceptually, except in a loose sense derived from reading popular mathematics stuff, but I'm willing to accept the idea as intelligible. Now I need to try to figure out what it means to compare them, or whether it makes sense to try.
posted by cgc373 at 10:22 AM on December 2, 2006

It seems to me to be a true crux of the differences between the point of view peeping_Thomist characterizes as bureaucratic individualism and the not-as-clearly-labeled point of view p_T presents his arguments from, that an individual human life is essentially exactly as valuable as a myriad human lives. "We"—if I'm in line with the majority of points of view on display in this thread, and in MetaFilter at large, and perhaps in the West more broadly—believe in a functionally different way to value lives, where more of them are more valuable than one of them. If we're honest with ourselves, this is what we believe, right? And it's not at all what peeping_Thomist believes. His sense of our valuation is a fascinated sort of horror at the callous way we regard a life, our ability to call some lives or a lot of lives more valuable than a particular life being wholly alien to him.

Am I reading us and you correctly, p_T? Or anybody else?
posted by cgc373 at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2006

i thought we were discussing ways in which society can mediate between differing world views, so i'm not sure about that, cgc373 ... on the other hand, it's a funny kind of philosophy that holds your life to being as valuable as every life in the universe but won't allow you to buy a lousy sixpack of beer at walmart ...

(so maybe that's not what he means ...)
posted by pyramid termite at 11:38 AM on December 2, 2006

cgc373: "It seems to me to be a true crux of the differences between the point of view peeping_Thomist characterizes as bureaucratic individualism and the not-as-clearly-labeled point of view p_T presents his arguments from, that an individual human life is essentially exactly as valuable as a myriad human lives."

Those of us standing in the tradition of the virtues don't think of human lives as "valuable"; we find that to be a creepy way to talk. You and others keep using words like "value" and "valuable" and "valuation", and I'm not even sure what these words are supposed to mean -- or what they could intelligibly mean. I assume you're relying upon some sharp distinction between "facts" and "values". But of course there is no such distinction, or at least not such as could make intelligible what you are saying.

""We" [...] believe in a functionally different way to value lives, where more of them are more valuable than one of them. If we're honest with ourselves, this is what we believe, right? And it's not at all what peeping_Thomist believes."

You are right that this is not at all what I believe, but not because I have views about "value" that differ from yours. First, because I don't have views about "value," and second because what you take to be your own views about "value" have no cognitive content.

"His sense of our valuation is a fascinated sort of horror at the callous way we regard a life, our ability to call some lives or a lot of lives more valuable than a particular life being wholly alien to him."

That's a pretty good description of how bureaucratic individualism looks from the standpoint of the tradition of the virtues.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 11:45 AM on December 2, 2006

pyramid termite, I think the discussion was spread over multiple levels of meaning—as a charitable interpretation of how it was conducted—so I don't feel too bad about picking topics from the mess. I thought I saw a crucial difference that could be specified, so I focused on it. Not intending to derail anybody else's lines, though, so I'm sorry if I cut off something you were saying.

p_T, I didn't intend to try to lump you into a value system, the premises of which aren't yours, and whose value (?) you don't accept. But I'm sure you realize that to talk about values from within a system of values, pretty much requires us to ascribe your views and premises some values, according to us. Just as you have to translate our value-based thinking into a framework that makes sense to you, in order to be able to talk to us at all, we must do the same with your views, trying to make them into values as we understand them. (And I know that by your lights, we don't have any idea what our "values" describe in cognitive or moral or other terms. Whatever our system is, if it is at all, it doesn't make sense on your terms. The point, though, is to figure out some ways to make sense of our systems so we can work with each other and live with each other, even talk to each other. It's more your point than ours, too, if I'm reading the thread right. We're kind of dominant on our own terms, and we've failed to interpret your views using good-faith efforts. Mostly we've just laughed because your views are so different from ours that they often seem, by our interpretation, insane. We ought to apologize, and I do, but I don't think "we" will.)
posted by cgc373 at 12:15 PM on December 2, 2006

so I'm sorry if I cut off something you were saying.

no need for that, there are lots of topics all over the place here and besides, we're about to all get cut off in a couple of hours ...

Just as you have to translate our value-based thinking into a framework that makes sense to you, in order to be able to talk to us at all, we must do the same with your views, trying to make them into values as we understand them.

he hasn't been entirely helpful or forthcoming with that ... sometimes i feel like i have to guess at what he's saying because it's really not clear

one example - he's talked about a tradition of virtues ... but he's yet to tell us what those virtues are ...

the other weakness i see in his arguments are that they often treat dissenting differences as if they don't or shouldn't exist ... and they ignore the real world and history ...

the catholic tradition had centuries to create a civilization that was self-sustaining and was instead superseded by something else ... it's important that he consider the reasons for that
posted by pyramid termite at 1:20 PM on December 2, 2006

cgc373: "Just as you have to translate our value-based thinking into a framework that makes sense to you, in order to be able to talk to us at all, we must do the same with your views, trying to make them into values as we understand them. (And I know that by your lights, we don't have any idea what our "values" describe in cognitive or moral or other terms. Whatever our system is, if it is at all, it doesn't make sense on your terms."

When I declare that your talk about "values" has no cognitive content, I am not merely reporting that there is no way to translate your "values"-talk into terms that make sense within the tradition of the virtues. Rather, I am declaring, as someone who has spent enough time learning to think as bureaucratic individualists think, and getting up to speed on the state of the argument within the tradition of liberalism, as unpleasant as both of those tasks have been, that your "values"-talk has no cognitive content whatsoever, in terms internal to the tradition of liberalism. That is why I keep referring to Nietzsche. Until liberal theorists come up with a real response to Nietzsche, the assessment stands: your "values"-talk has no cognitive content.

If all I were claiming was that when I translate your statements into terms internal to my tradition they are rendered meaningless, I would not keep harping on it. It would be my responsibility to go away and study some more until I could make sense of what you were saying. No, the critiques of the tradition of liberalism internal to the tradition of liberalism have been so decisive, so compelling, so conclusive, that nowadays liberal theorists of any sophistication have either retreated into babbling solipsistically about their "intuitions," or else have affirmed emotivism outright.

Hell, you all would not want to hear, and of course would not be able to understand it even if you did hear, an external critique of the tradition of liberalism from the standpoint of the tradition of virtues.

pyramid termite: "the catholic tradition had centuries to create a civilization that was self-sustaining and was instead superseded by something else"

Um, we're still here.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:56 PM on December 2, 2006

yes, you're still here, but the church doesn't have the prominent role it had in european civilization a few centuries ago ... it is not the center of our civilization, like it was ... it's been superseded by liberalism

thus, your complaints ...

nowadays liberal theorists of any sophistication have either retreated into babbling solipsistically about their "intuitions,"

you've yet to define anything of your own world view that couldn't be determined as relying on intuitions ... in fact, even though i've asked you to, you've still failed to demonstrate to me that your (or any other) worldview is not based on assumptions

until you demonstrate that, you can hardly criticize us for our "intuitions"

Hell, you all would not want to hear, and of course would not be able to understand it even if you did hear, an external critique of the tradition of liberalism from the standpoint of the tradition of virtues.

that's a rather arrogant statement, if taken at its worst interpretation ... in its best interpretation, you're saying that you have a worldview that cannot be explained to other people, you cannot refute what they believe, and you have this "tradition of virtues" that, although it cannot be explained or used to refute other worldviews, is, none the less, "rationally superior" to ours

at some point, p_T, whether it be in defense of your philosophy, in reaction against ours, or in criticism of the way the world is currently governed by "bureaucratic individualism" (according to you), you are actually going to have to back up what you say with some facts if you want what you say to affect anyone who doesn't live in an ivory tower
posted by pyramid termite at 2:21 PM on December 2, 2006

I'm not sure I'd go so far as pyramid termite in saying your system can't be taken seriously, p_T, because I suspect your system can be taken as seriously and can be as useful to people who understand it and who use it to order their lives, as any other system people use to order their lives. I'm the sort of skeptic who thinks people can't make up rules for themselves that accord with other sets of rules other people make up for themselves. I also think we as animals have cooked up ways to pretend that we control our environment, but we're fooling ourselves. We're fooling ourselves as badly as you are, but we're doing it without the excuse of revealed religion. We use different excuses. It's perhaps a nihilist's point of view I'm describing, but I don't believe "nothing matters," so perhaps it's not. I just don't believe I can understand, and I suspect nobody can, at least, not in the ways p_T says can be explained to a "minimally rational agent" so that agent is compelled by the explanation to understand and to agree.
posted by cgc373 at 2:35 PM on December 2, 2006

"Hell, you all would not want to hear, and of course would not be able to understand it even if you did hear, an external critique of the tradition of liberalism from the standpoint of the tradition of virtues."

Bullshit. Like many of your comments, and I don't mean this to come across unduly combative, the presumption of revealed truth and that truth's incommunicability is at the same time galling, unsustainable and foolish.
But the element of sincere gibberish and philosophical doggeral seems to be essential to your worldview, so perhaps one shouldn't hold out any hope for a cogent reasoning. On some level, I can't understand how people can believe in Scientology either.
posted by klangklangston at 2:39 PM on December 2, 2006

pyramid termite: "at some point, p_T, whether it be in defense of your philosophy, in reaction against ours, or in criticism of the way the world is currently governed by "bureaucratic individualism" (according to you), you are actually going to have to back up what you say with some facts if you want what you say to affect anyone who doesn't live in an ivory tower"

Such has not been my experience. Perhaps the best way to read you here is as describing conditions you think I would need to satisfy in order for my remarks to have any effect on you in particular, but in my experience people typically are not good judges of what conditions unfamiliar modes of thought must satisfy in order to have a profound effect upon them. If I had a dollar for every time a liberal who talked tough about "facts" the way you are talking right now had his insides torn apart and rearranged by reading Nietzsche, who never appeals to facts, I'd be a rich man.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:45 PM on December 2, 2006

I'm not sure I'd go so far as pyramid termite in saying your system can't be taken seriously

to clarify, i can't know whether it can be taken seriously until he manages to explain it ... and i think his insistence that he can't explain it doesn't necessarily mean that someone else couldn't
posted by pyramid termite at 2:46 PM on December 2, 2006

klangklangston: "the presumption of revealed truth and that truth's incommunicability is at the same time galling, unsustainable and foolish. "

Your inability to comprehend an external critique doesn't have anything to do with revealed truth. Aristotle's critique of our society would also strike you as gibberish, and it would not involve any reference to revealed truth.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2006

I think it's clearer to say that any minimally rational agent already believes enough internally contradictory stuff to make communication between minimally rational agents difficult—at best. Ordinary communication fails more often than it succeeds, meaning that people talking to each other hear each other's words and interpret them according each person's individually idiosyncratic beliefs.

So when klangklangston says he can't understand how people can believe in Scientology, I hear him saying something about how he can't imagine himself believing in Scientology. It's an on-the-fly translation, and I make it to fit my sense of things, so I think I can understand what he says, but he may not have meant anything close to what I hear him meaning.
posted by cgc373 at 2:49 PM on December 2, 2006

Perhaps the best way to read you here is as describing conditions you think I would need to satisfy in order for my remarks to have any effect on you in particular,

or anyone else who's looking for content ... such as, "show me a worldview that isn't based on an assumption" ... such as "show me how it is the current social system that is based upon liberalism is not working" ... such as "show me that outside of your tradition, that there are NO values being transmitted at all in the world at large"

If I had a dollar for every time a liberal who talked tough about "facts" the way you are talking right now had his insides torn apart and rearranged by reading Nietzsche,

nietzsche is dead

and i dare say d t suzuki, lao tze, basho, rilke, and a lot of other people (not to mention a few tabs of acid) have already trained me in the art of tearing one's insides apart and rearranging them

you're not talking to an intellectual, but an alchemist by means of art ... please try to remember that
posted by pyramid termite at 2:56 PM on December 2, 2006

by the way, what kind of argument is it for catholicism or the "tradition of virtues" when you keep telling me to read nietzsche?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:01 PM on December 2, 2006

pyramid termite, it's not an argument for Catholocism or for "the tradition of the virtues"; it's a recommendation for a way to understand the cognitive emptiness of the liberal tradition. p_T's saying Nietzsche has the most radical critique of liberalism he knows, and it's such a devastating critique that nobody has answered it.
posted by cgc373 at 3:10 PM on December 2, 2006

Catholicism.
posted by cgc373 at 3:15 PM on December 2, 2006

he's not familiar with the sixth patriarch, then ...

"the bodhi is not like the tree,
the mirror bright is nowhere shining;
as there is nothing from the first,
where can the dust itself collect?"

nietzsche was a piker compared to that guy ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:18 PM on December 2, 2006

He's probably talking about critiques internal to the liberal tradition, of which Nietzsche's was foremost.
posted by cgc373 at 3:22 PM on December 2, 2006

i understand that, but see, it's symptomatic of something that i've noticed throughout this thread, is that he does a better job of saying what he's against that what he's for ...

of course, milton had the same problem in paradise lost and dante in the divine comedy ... it's a common problem ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:26 PM on December 2, 2006

than what he's for ... sheesh ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:27 PM on December 2, 2006

cgc373: "He's probably talking about critiques internal to the liberal tradition, of which Nietzsche's was foremost."

Correct! Let me put it in slogan form: the only critique that matters is internal critique. Epistemological crises are never precipitated by external critique -- every substantial tradition of rational inquiry, whether scientific or ethical, has what are known in the philosophy of science as "standing refutations," that is, external critiques that are taken by members of rival traditions to be decisive. None of these standing refutations matters until the tradition runs into an epistemological crisis, and those are precipitated only by internal critique.

There's not much point in my advising mefites to read Catholic critiques of the tradition of liberalism, since you would all interpret such external critiques as either "moral" critique (and hence assimilable to something with which you are familiar, namely "moral" discourse) or as gibberish.

If you are interested in a genuine encounter with an alien mode of thought, the place to look is not at that tradition's external critique of your tradition, but rather at the core of that tradition itself, taken on its own terms. I've appealed to Kuhn a few times upthread, and I'll do it one more (last?) time. When trying to make sense of alien modes of thought, focus especially on the things they say that don't seem to make any sense. Don't assume that you understand the things they say that seem to be familiar, because you are probably misunderstanding those things.

By the way, cgc373, I looked at your profile and saw you posted Nussbaum's (a liberal liberal) demolition of Mansfield's (a conservative liberal) book. I almost posted that. (Yep, I read a hard copy of TNR every week so I can keep up to date on liberalism, gritting my teeth the whole time.) She really did hand him his ass.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:30 PM on December 2, 2006

every substantial tradition of rational inquiry, whether scientific or ethical, has what are known in the philosophy of science as "standing refutations," that is, external critiques that are taken by members of rival traditions to be decisive.

well, at last we come to the point of miscommunication ... i know this, of course ...

where you've gone wrong is in your assumption that beyond the political realm, where i don't see an alternative, that i'm a liberal

it's not that i don't want an alternative ... it's that no one's demonstrated one to me

oh ... last post!!
posted by pyramid termite at 3:36 PM on December 2, 2006

pyramid termite: "he does a better job of saying what he's against that what he's for ..."

This is not an appropriate forum for that. Even though we have accumulated 30 days' worth and hundreds of pages of sound bites, these are still sound bites. Me trying to "say what I am for" in this forum would put me in the position of Edna Krabappel and you all in the position of Bart Simpson. Pearls before swine and all that. No thanks. Wouldn't be prudent.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2006

Aw, hells no, pyramid termite. I want the last post.
posted by cgc373 at 3:39 PM on December 2, 2006

would put me in the position of Edna Krabappel and you all in the position of Bart Simpson. Pearls before swine and all that. No thanks. Wouldn't be prudent.

that's a nice snarky signoff ... your arrogant assumption that i don't have pearls of my own that i'm concealing is noted
posted by pyramid termite at 3:40 PM on December 2, 2006

In the end, I'm shocked mefi could handle the sheer number of comm—JRUN TERROR JRUN TERROR JRUN TERROR
posted by cortex at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2006

Heh. "Wouldn't be prudent." That's pretty funny. Okay, lol.
posted by cgc373 at 3:41 PM on December 2, 2006

unfortunately, i think i would be rather hard pressed to explain all that in two minutes ... (and i hardly expected you to be able to)

last post!!
posted by pyramid termite at 3:42 PM on December 2, 2006 [2 favorites]